Mostly, yes, in terms of reasonably detailed, creditable lab tests. While
the opinions about new equipment in CQ, 73 and World Radio are interesting
to read, they are only that: opinions. And they come from individuals with
unknown agendas . . . so who do you believe?
ARRL has many faults, both as an organization and in its operation, but it
is the only organization that provides reasonably consistent, detailed
testing of new amateur radio products. I tend to discount the reviewers
summary and subjective comments as just another opinion, but the data
presented in the extended lab reports is usually fairly reliable, and that
is what tells the story. I think that it is important that essentially the
same tests and test conditions are used on all similar products, such as
transceivers, so that comparisons are possible and have some meaning.
Nothing it more frustrating than to read some guy's "review" of a new radio
which he took home for the weekend and heard and worked all sorts of great
DX and gee, what a neat radio this is, etc. That comes in second only to
similar antenna reviews in which highly questionable, unrepeatable backyard
test results are obtained and reported as gospel. Interesting that only now
will QST finally allow advertisers to quote gain and other performance data
provided that it comes from a reputable modelling program!
73/72/oo, George W5YR - the Yellow Rose of Texas
Fairview, TX 30 mi NE of Dallas in Collin county EM13qe
Amateur Radio W5YR, in the 56th year and it just keeps getting better!
QRP-L 1373 NETXQRP 6 SOC 262 COG 8 FPQRP 404 TEN-X 11771 I-LINK 11735
Icom IC-756PRO #02121 Kachina 505 DSP #91900556 Icom IC-765 #02437
Ron Notarius WN3VAW wrote:
>
> We only have QST? What are CQ, 73, and Worldradio, chopped liver?
>
> 73, ron wn3vaw
|