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