I find that most published reviews are basically "vanilla" in content. In
most instances the reviewer is unfamiliar with the equipment and most often
takes the "lab approach" to confirm that the published specs are indeed
about accurate or not. I've rarely seen specs which are seriously refuted.
In most cases there is determined to be a fault in the equipment where great
deviations exist.
It is a marketing nightmare in an effort to be first to the market to launch
a new such and such. Also, the manufacturers want favorable reviews
primarily to initiate sales to offset development costs. Advertising today
is big bucks both to the seller and the publisher. A consistent track
record of unfavorable reviews will spell doom for a manufacturer and they
will then abstain from submitting equipment for review to that publication.
On the other hand, some publishers will buy equipment to review, do the
vanilla review and publish the results to glean more advertising dollars.
As to reviews in general, I try to take and place more emphasis on what is
not said as opposed to what is said. That requires some careful reading and
research. And then there are those areas that are purely subjective. The
new breed of radios has a lot of depth in this area and I view it
impractical to try to evaluate and describe such domains. Each user will
have to roll their own in this arena. Yes, it may be an expensive roll, but
to be first one has to pay the big bucks and take a chance that the
manufacturer will and does stand behind what they have designed, built and
sold. I think that we have seen e-mail exchanges here on the Tentec
reflector indicating that Tentec took some serious steps to solve a specific
AM broadcast IM issue. Cruising the other reflectors as I do, I haven't
seen the President of those companies in a personal communication with a
customer. I think that says more about a company's culture than any review
or advertising will ever accomplish.
73
Bob, K4TAX
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Rippey" <jrippey@3n.net>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 11:15 PM
Subject: [TenTec] QST Ad
>
> "I find the reviews do nothing to accurately characterize or measure
> the AGC
> and QSK performance, two of the most important contributors to my
> potential
> love or disdain of a transceiver.
>
> 73, Barry N1EU"
>
> Yes, indeed. I think the reviewers (as opposed to the lab) do not
> devote enough time to really learn how to operate these new,
> complicated rigs. A weekend spent in a contest is not going to cut
> it. The review rig seems to get passed around the office so a bunch
> of people get a few hours with it. I also do not understand why ARRL
> has to buy one of the very early production units. One of the other
> commenters noted that the early Orion had bugs. So do they all. Also,
> Ten-Tec virtually rewrote the book a few months after Orion's
> release, so to speak, with extensive new manual material explaining
> how to use the rig. The reviewers did not have access to this
> information.
>
> It would be much better for QST to wait six months or so and then
> have someone take time to really go over the rig. It should be a full
> time job for someone. Then we would learn more about the AGC, QSK,
> performance, etc. I've run through several Yaesu rigs and every one
> of them has had annoying pops/thumps on the "break" of a CW signal
> (sidetone)in the headphones. No review in QST ever mentioned this
> annoying bug. I've given up on Yaesus. (How Icom, Kenwood and Ten-Tec
> can produce quiet CW sidetones and not Yaesu is a question for the
> ages.)
>
> It's taken me a long while to appreciate how nice is the front panel
> design and ergonomics of the Jupiter. The QST review years ago talked
> about how it was a Pegasus with a front panel, but it did not mention
> that it is about the best layout for a CW op one could wish for.
>
> At best, the narrative of a QST review is a once-over lightly. Dave
> Newkirk was the last in-depth reviewer that I can recall. However, as
> Bill Tippett has pointed out, the FT-9000 Contest review provided a
> wealth of data presented in bright graphics including 2 kHz IMD and
> other results. This is a big step forward, due in part to Bill's
> insistence. But does the 9000 click in your ear? THAT is the question.
>
> 73,
> John, W3ULS
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|