In re the QST review of the Argonaut V:
1. The review in the March CQ is more thorough and gives a considerably
better sense of what this rig can do.
2. Mr. Lindquist in QST reports he used the Argonaut during two CW
contests including the ARRL's International DX CW contest. He writes: "Even
with a ton of signals in close proximity--many of them quite loud--the
Argonaut was able to pick out the ones I wanted to hear; more often than
not, the 20 W made it possible to work them." This coincides exactly with
my experience in the recent CQ WW DX CW contest.
3. Mr Lindquist also reports that "We didn't try taking the the
Argonaut V
on the road, however. There just did not seem to be a any particular
advantage. . . ." It's not clear to me what this means, unless he is trying
to say the Argonaut V is not a satisfactory portable/mobile rig IHHO.
4. The ARRL's lab data show relatively mediocre performance parameters.
Yet my experience with the Argonaut is that it is a highly satisfactory
rig--regardless of the lab's findings. IMHO pure lab numbers derived from
one sample of a rig do not tell readers much of value and can in fact be
misleading. This goes for any testing, not just for the Argonaut.
5. Anyone interested in my take on the Argonaut V can read my previous
postings beginning on Feb. 8.
73,
John, W3ULS
|