TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews

To: tentec@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews
From: Rsoifer@aol.com
Reply-to: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:45:03 -0400 (EDT)
List-post: <tentec@contesting.com">mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
John,
 
I, too, can cut Rick some slack personally, but he was the reviewer of the  
Orion II who said he had difficulty with its operation because he was used 
to  Icom.  Rick was honest in his review; the problem was with the editor 
who  assigned it to him.  
 
The RadCom review was better.  Long may Peter Hart continue.   (BTW, I am a 
longtime writer for both magazines, but not a reviewer.)
 
73 Ray W2RS
 
 
In a message dated 8/31/2011 9:38:18 P.M. GMT Standard Time,  
w3uls73@gmail.com writes:

I can  remember years ago when the this topic elicited reams of verbiage on
[in]  several discussion groups.

With the changes ARRL has made in reporting  IMD3 for receivers, all you 
have
to do is subtract 8-10 dB to get very  close to Rob Sherwood's findings. Nw
biggie. The latest review is of the  IC-7410 by Rick Lindquist, WW3DE, in 
the
upcoming October issue. He  specializes in long-winded reviews, and you have
to read each line  carefully sometimes to get the drift. He does report, for
example, that he  found no difference between semi and full break-in on CW.
Meaning: there is  no QSK available on the IC-7410 no matter what Icom
claims. (Overall, I cut  Lindquist some slack because he had a stroke after
retiring from the ARRL  and seems to have recovered quite well.)

Incidentally, I have owned  quite a few DSP-based transceivers, and have not
found the same problems  with static crashes that Sherwood has reported, and
I've used these radios  when surrounded by thunderstorms.. (Lindquist did 
say
in his review that  such things muted the audio on the test IC-7410 on
occasion.)

IMHO,  Sherwood and his work are admirable, even irreplaceable. Yet I think
he is  overly critical of the ARRL and its lab procedures, given the fact of
the  ARRL's large overhead that must be paid for and the good work they  do
overall. They beat the FCC in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District  of
Columbia, for example, which is no small accomplishment. So I can live  with
a little less rigor in the testing area as long as Rob Sherwood (and  Peter
Hart) are around to offer their opinions.

73,

John,  W3ULS
_______________________________________________
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>