Gents,
I've been reading this list for a couple of weeks. Yesterday a Paragon was
sold here. I didn't know anything about them so I went to the ARRL
members-only QST Equipment Tests to look for a review. Also, since my only
basis for comparison is the Corsair I got a few weeks ago (the reason I
joined the list), it seemed logical to compare their numbers so I might have
some perspective. I discovered that QST didn't review the Corsair I but they
had figures for the Corsair II. Then I learned that the Paragon was
essentially the replacement of the Corsair II so it seemed to be a very good
comparison.
I decided to compare some rcvr performance figures first. I looked at
minimum discernable signal (MDS, in dBm), blocking dynamic range (BDR, in
dB), and second-tone third-order intermodulation distortion (IMD, in dB). In
each case, I checked the figures for 3.5 MHz and 14 MHz. Here is what I
found.
Corsair II, Aug'87, MDS 127-124, BDR 117-???, IMD 84-80
Paragon, May'88, MDS 139.5-137, BDR 136.5-136, IMD 101.5-101
Although I'm a novice at understanding such figures, it certainly looks like
the Paragon was an improvement on the Corsair II, besides being its
replacement. Well, this aroused my curiosity so I decided to look at a few
other TenTec rigs.
Let me say a thing or two about my career in ham radio. It's less than a
year old; I got my Corsair I based almost entirely on a QRP-L thread about
"my very favorite rig, the one I never should've sold, what was I thinking!"
Until reading that thread, I'd had only one rig (a QRP Plus) but I knew I
wanted to try something else (not because I was unhappy with what I had but
really just to get more experience with equipment). Well, I got a nice old
Corsair because it seemed to be the most fondly remembered rig. And I've
been very happy. But looking at those numbers, I couldn't help but think,
WHY did everyone love the Corsair and not the Paragon? The Paragon must've
been better!
That was my frame of mind when I looked at other TenTec rig performance
numbers. Continuing to look at the same figures (MDS, BDR, and IMD at 3.5MHz
and 14MHz) this is what I found:
Paragon, May'88, MDS 139.5-137, BDR 136.5-136, IMD 101.5-101
Omni V, Nov'90, MDS 135.0-136, BDR 135.0-135, IMD 95-97
Omni VI, Jan'93, MDS 133.5-136, BDR 123.5-128, IMD 95-100
Omni VI+,Nov'97, MDS 135.0-133, BDR 123.0-123, IMD 98-97
Jupiter, Jun'01, MDS 127.0-135, BDR 113.0-123, IMD 87-85
To begin, I realize that this is a bit of comparing apples, the
top-of-the-line Omnis, to oranges, the mid-level Paragon & Jupiter. But
where are the best numbers? Not only does the Paragon seem superior to the
Corsair II it replaced, it looks superior to everything else in the nearly
15 years since. Has it been all downhill? (Figures for the Scout, Delta II,
etc., reinforce that idea.) But if things are in constant decline, why did
QST think the Omni VI+ was such an improved rig when the Omni V numbers look
to be as good if not better? Well, let me tell you, my head was positively
spinning!!
My question to you, should you care to accept it, is: how does your
hands-on experience of TenTec (and other) rigs compare to such numbers, and
how much do numbers matter, anyway?
Somebody else (just an e-mail or two previous) asked for a comparison
J(ignoring cost) between the Jupiter and the Argonaut V. In a way, my
question is just another version of his. What makes a great rig--in a ham's
shack, not in the laboratory?
Finally, I know we'll get into the realm of strong opinion here: for the
sake of the innocent ears of children who stumble on our website while
surfing for pornography, please let's remain civil and respectful to each
other. Even if you-know-who is full of you-know-what!
72/73,
Max, k0max
|