Rick, et al,
Once again, radios tested earlier than 2007 can be directly compared unless
they were noted as being "noise limited," meaning that we were unable to
take the data at that point.
Obviously, any new data (for example we recently started to measure receiver
performance at 505 kHz) that wasn't taken in earlier periods can't be
compared either.
We do try to improve what we do, as technology advances, and as our test
equipment gets more sophisticated. We do, however, have in mind that people
do need to be able to compare new and old data and accommodate as is
practicable.
Regards, Joel Hallas, W1ZR
Technical Editor, QST
ARRL
-----Original Message-----
From: tentec-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com]
On Behalf Of Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 5:23 AM
To: 'Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment'
Subject: Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews
Yes John, Joel's link certainly shed light on this confusing subject.
But I was not satisfied to let the subject die with that.
There was still the issue of Hans putting a lot of work into his list, yet
the list as it was, was misleading.
In the meantime I have corresponded with Hans several times, explained the
situation, shown him the ARRL response and he has made two changes to his
list.
1. It now has a statement at the bottom that transceivers tested before
February 2007 cannot be easily compared to those tested later. (the Orion 2
was tested in 2006)
2. He has added the List Price to each radio (last column on the right)
As a result, I think the list is now a VERY useful tool.
Now a personal note: I think this makes it very clear that good receiver
performance is not dependent on money alone. Technology also plays a big
role.
Here again the link to Hans' list:
http://www.remeeus.eu/hamradio/pa1hr/productreview.htm
73
Rick, DJ0IP
-----Original Message-----
From: tentec-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com]
On Behalf Of John Rippey
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 1:35 AM
To: tentec@contesting.com
Subject: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews
Thanks for the links, Joel. These postings close the subject for me.
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
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|