I did not like the QST article because to me it seemed out of character with
their other reviews, which often seem to me to border on being "sales
pitches" for the equipment under review. When I read the article, I asked
myself, "Why the sudden change in review style for the Orion II? Why so
little space devoted to the superb performance aspects of this radio and so
much space devoted to a few problem areas?"
The Orion II is an INCREDIBLE radio, but the only way I knew it from the QST
article was by the Technical data in the green zone and one or two sentences
out of the entire article! Just referencing the original Orion review, to
me, just doesn't cut it. To me it seemed the ratio of the really important
positive performance aspects vs. the negative performance aspects seemed way
out of whack, with far too much space devoted to the relatively few negative
I guess I would have felt better if they had prefaced the review with a
statement to the effect: UNLIKE OUR PRIOR GLOWING REVIEWS OF OUR
ADVERTISERS' PRODUCTS, WE ARE HENCHEFORTH (STARTING WITH THIS REVIEW) GOING
TO EMPHASIZE THE NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF THE PRODUCT.
I'm going to be reading future QST reviews to see if this new trend
continues, and if it does not, then someone might justifiably cry "foul!"
73, Greg, N6GK
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/403 - Release Date: 7/28/2006
TenTec mailing list