[TenTec] CQ Magazine review of Omni-VI+

Charles D. Shinn cshinn@connect.net
Wed, 4 Mar 1998 10:59:11 -0600

I agree. It would appear that virtually all equipment reviews are tainted by
the inability of the reviewer to express themselves because of real or
imaginary "Loss of Advertising Revenue". Business is poor these days.
Cutting out those advert bux to an unfriendly rag might be a good move for
some that might be on the edge.....Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Calvin <dcalvin@austin.ibm.com>
To: tentec@contesting.com <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 04, 1998 10:24 AM
Subject: [TenTec] CQ Magazine review of Omni-VI+

>I agree - "CQ" magazine's reviews of equipment have become less than
>useful, and in some cases misleading.  I like the ARRL's test report
>format, but even they occasionally leave things out that I would have
>liked to have seen comments about.  I don't know if CQ's reviewers are
>handcuffed in what they can write, or if a "general impression" is all
>they are able to provide.  Either way, I don't find their writeups very
>helpful in understanding a new piece of gear's high and low points, or
>how it compares to the competition.
> 73,  Duane   AC5AA   (but I like my Omni-VI+)
>Duane A. Calvin      "All statements are mine only, not my employer's."
>dacalvin@us.ibm.com -or- dcalvin@austin.ibm.com
>evenings:  ac5aa@juno.com
>FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
>Submissions:              tentec@contesting.com
>Administrative requests:  tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
>Problems:                 owner-tentec@contesting.com
>Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm

FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
Submissions:              tentec@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-tentec@contesting.com
Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm