Any advertiser supported publication that prints equipment reviews MUST give
due consideration to all aspects of the situation. An editor must consider
who they want to lay off before they print a suggestion that the best thing to
do with that box of ill made trash would be a thirty foot drop onto concrete,
followed by a ride in the dustpan to the ashcan. Print many seriously negative
reviews and the powers that be will seriously consider laying you off. Just
before the publication folds for lack of advertising revenue.
However, there are two parts to every review; the descriptive text and the
standard test results. The standard test results in QST's sidebar are
generally both useful and accurate. At least sufficently accurate to be well
within reason considering manufacturing and measurement tolerances.
The descriptive text is the part I generally question. I do not believe you
can get a useful test when you give the resident Ducati wonk the latest Duke
for the weekend and requre "test results" by "eight ayem Monday latest." By
the nature of things, every "evolutionary improvement" will be praised to the
skies - and every devolution will be studiously ignored.
A filler comment such as "The first thing that struck me as positive was the
fact that in order to hook up my AL-1200 amp to the '7800, all I had to do was
connect an audio cable with RCA plugs to each box" leaves me wondering why it
took so many words to say so little. "The amp relay connection takes an RCA
plug" is sufficently verbose. The comments about the "marvelling" at the
receiver sensitivity are also prolix - and are possibly misleading, since he
makes a definite statement that he has not tried an Orion.
I could extend this considerably, since each of the various individual
commentaries reveal as much or more about the author than the faults and the
virtues of the IC-7800.
To be fair, those who write for hobby publications are not well renumerated. If
I were an inkslinging ham with a TS930 and were given an opportunity to use a
rig selling for a few months pay over a weekend I would be both grateful and
effusive. Although I would try not to gush to the extent seen here.
And to be fair to ARRL labs and QST, reviews are like angry words. No matter
how you try or how wrong they were or what has changed, words cannot be
effectively recalled. Once they are in print, neither can reviews.
My results with popular imported rigs have been spotty at best. I have seven
hams in the family, and it always seems one of the kids needs a new rig. I have
bought more than a few first production rigs that were well built and
performed well, and then given the kids units from subsequent production runs
that apparently had apparently been made of the cheapest components available,
by unskilled labor, at some sweat shop far far away from those overseeing
quality control. Junk is junk, even if you spell it junque.
It's not the reviewers fault when a manufacturer sacrifices quality and
performance for profit in the second production run. It's the makers fault.
But, unfair and unreasonable as it is, it is all too human to blame the
publication and not the equipment maker when QC takes an extended trip to the
infernal regions.
73 Pete Allen AC5E
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tentec-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of SS409SS@aol.com
> Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 6:41 AM
> To: tentec@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] ARRL Icom 7800 Review Published
>
>
> In a message dated 6/26/2004 11:44:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> nq5t@comcast.net writes:
>
> >
> > They DO seem to like it ..
> >
> > Grant/NQ5T
>
>
> As we know, the ARRL likes the advertizing $$ as well. Just ask John Bee,
> when we told him about the problems with the FT100 he weighed what was worth
> more when deciding if he should inquire further. Guess what, the almighty
> dollar took the front seat in his decision.
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|