[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] QST AD

To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] QST AD
From: joel hallas <jrhallas@optonline.net>
Reply-to: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:12:55 -0500
List-post: <mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
Well, expanded reviews do give you a lot of good data. OTOH, the intent 
of the QST review is to balance it with subjective assessment of  how it 
"feels" to run the radio. Great numbers are fine, but the smell and feel 
of the radio is important too, at least IMHO. Subjective reports have 
the downside of the being viewed through the lens of the observer, but 
be assured that advertising revenue doesn't enter into the equation.

An interesting comparison is that between the FTDX-9000 Contest data and 
the data we measured in the ARRL Lab on the "HBR-2000", also in the 
March issue. This is Markus Hanson's home brew high-performance 
transceiver. It puts most commercial gear to shame! Gentlemen - start 
your soldering irons!

Joel Hallas, W1ZR
(Technical Editor, QST)

Bill Tippett wrote:

> >I'd like to see harder hitting reviews with some critical discussion.   The
>only place you can get the ugly side of things is by reading the  comments on
>eHam and they are not very scientific.
>         Don't read QST or eHam reviews.  Learn to read
>ARRL's Expanded Test Reports.  The real unvarnished
>data is there if you know how to interpret it.  If
>you don't, read KC1SX's article here:
>                                         73,  Bill  W4ZV
>TenTec mailing list

TenTec mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>