John, it might be that the early release of the Rob Sherwood took the wind
out of the sails. Did we learn anything new from the ARRL report?
Personally, I do not need ARRL labs to test and report on a radio.
If I can get my hands on one, I feel just using it on good antennas in a
contest (where the rubber meets the road) is a good enough test. It's nice
to have the ARRL review as a sanity check, but heck, the radio performs good
enough for all but the purists! (and we've known that for a couple of
months now)
Price is relative. The cost of average transceivers has gone down in the
past 10 to 15 years, but the adjusted price of the O7 is really not as bad
as that of the O6 and O6+ were in their day (if you added all the filters).
73
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: tentec-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com]
On Behalf Of John Rippey
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:59 PM
To: tentec@contesting.com
Subject: [TenTec] Omni VII
I'm intrigued by the lack of comments on the July QST review of the
OMNI VII.
It's a very good radio, if a bit pricey, for everyday ham use, and I
would have thought there would be discussion of the review and lab
results. Not so.
Is it because the radio has no appeal to participants in this list?
Can it be that the radio's major appeal is to computer-bound folks
who want to operate remotely?
That's certainly the theme of Ten-Tec's advertising, at least.
_______________________________________________
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
|