> On the other hand, we have those blasting the ARRL Lab results due to
> "obvious" conflicts of interest (since QST accepts advertising) and/or
> because they feel the Lab is not doing an adequate job. Yet this
> contingent appears silent on what the other publications do, if
> anything. Hmmm.
The ARRL lab is actually almost too immune to external feedback of
any type. People aren't correct in saying they bend to manufacturer's
will, so far as test results go. While I don't think the methods used
are always the best or always 100% reliable, one thing is for
certain......the lab never cooks results or technical information in
favor of manufacturers!
That of course is different than the text, which depends heavily on
the mindset or personal opinions of the author. This is inevitable,
because the text uses "feelings" rather than cold hard facts.
I'm all for more measurements more measurement verification, and less
fuzzy text!
In contrast many or most other publications do a nice review if you
give the reviewer a gift, like the product they are reviewing. Some
actually brag about not having a single piece of test gear, and
actually claim that is an advantage! Generally you can send the text
and specifications you would like printed along with the free gear.
So in the USA, we have only one source for reviews....QST. While it
is not perfect, it is **much** better than any other system.73, Tom
W8JI
W8JI@contesting.com
|