Ray,Very true, but keep in mind that the feature sets are different between the
first two groups. All the radios in the first group either have, or offer, a
second receiver. This was a major differentiator for me.If you don't want or
need the second receiver you can indeed get top notch performance from a radio
in the second group.73, Joel Hallas, W1ZR----- Original Message -----From:
Rsoifer@aol.comDate: Thursday, September 8, 2011 11:16 amSubject: Re: [TenTec]
ARRL ReviewsTo: tentec@contesting.com> Hi all,> > Since we're into subjective
impressions, I'll put on my flak > jacket and > share mine.> > Looking at Rob
Sherwood's table, the top six receivers (FT-5000, > K3, > Perseus, Flex 5000,
Orion I and II) look pretty much > indistinguishable. One > spec is a little
better, another a little worse. Then there is > a small step > down to the
next level (Eagle, Flex 3000, etc.) Those are > almost as good, > and
generally less expensive. They perform about as well as th
e > top group > in all but the most demanding situations, and represent >
excellent value for > money.> > Older radios generally rank lower in the
table, but as has been > said by > others, are just as good as when we bought
them. I have fun > with my KWM-2 as > well as my Orion II.> > 73 Ray W2RS> >
> > > > > In a message dated 9/8/2011 1:39:10 P.M. GMT Standard Time, >
cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net writes:> > Perfect! Absolutely perfect. Kudos to you,
good Sir!> > Kim N5OP> > At 05:59 AM 9/8/2011, you wrote:> >I offer three
personal observations on the new radio - > receiver list > debate:> >> >
1) As new radios come to market, they may (should) be> > expected to
perform better than older models. This> > sort of quality attrition
happens in most all fields of> > endeavor. New models outpace older
ones. But...> >> > 2) No matter how much better a new radio is
compared to> > your old rig, ... your old radio does
not suddenly start> > performing worse. It is still the radio it
always was.> >> > 3) These receiver rankings are sorted only by
close-in> > third order intercept specifications. Some of the lower>
> rated radios appear to have superior or equivalent ratings> >
on other specs.> >> >> >Therefore, I don't feel bad that my Omni VII was
once rated > one of the> >best receivers when it was released in '07, but has
fallen a > couple of> >places on these receiver rating lists. It performs
the same > today as> >it did back then. I have not lost any ground, nor have
I > been set> >back, just because the Eagle, or the TX-590s have better >
close-in third> >order intercept specifications. I expect my new TX-590s to
> have better> >numbers... as does the new TT Eagle. My Omni VII has not >
lost any> >ground - the others just pushed the envelope out a little >
farther, but> >the Omni VII is just as good as it always was.
Same for the > Orion II> >and other rigs. No one took a step backward.> >>
>I suspect this take could explain why so many Collins owners > continue to>
>exhibit tremendous pride and experience such enjoyment with those> >vintage
rigs. They are the same great radios they always > were, despite> >the fact
newer, improved radios have come along.> >> >Besides, these receiver test
charts are of limited utility as > they are> >sorted for one, albeit
important, factor. But, this > overlooks, and> >overshadows, the fact some of
the "lesser" radios have > superior figures> >and better specifications in
other categories. They may also > have> >other features you might prefer.
Therefore, one needs to > look at ALL> >the specifications before making a
purchase decision, or > before one> >decides his rig has been rendered
obsolete.> >> >Therefore, I am not losing any sleep over the rating my rig >
currently>has. I plan on shamelessly enjoying my Omni VII for > a v
ery long time -> >without worry the new Eagle has a superior close->
>in-third-order-intercept score. The Omni VII works as well > as it did>
>when I purchased it a couple years back.> >> >Besides, I figure I have a
limited budget, and good enough is just> >that... good enough.> >> >This is
just MY take, anyway... your mileage may differ for various> >multiple
reasons.> >> >------------------> >Happy Trails.> >> >=======================
Richards / K8JHR =========================> >> >On 9/2/2011 23:49, Ron Castro
wrote:> > > How true! There is no scientific correlation between > numbers >
published on> > > the page of a magazine and what is actually coming out of >
your speaker > or> > > headphones. If they correct the numbers it won't
improve > the > > performance of> > > your radio at all.>
>_______________________________________________> >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> >
_______________________________________________> 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
|