[TenTec] OMNI VI Transmit IMD [6+]

[George, W5YR]

Art, we are singing from the same page of the same hymnal. While I enjoy
reading the reviewer's personal comments about trying out a new piece of
gear, I find it disappointing that the magazine does not offer a disclaimer
that the review is based almost entirely upon personal impressions with
little or no actual testing involved. People's reactions to the control
layout, ease of understanding the features , etc, are all part of a
thorough review. But the CQ, 73, and World Radio are strong on the opinions
and weak to lacking on the data.

So, bottom line: ARRL Labs do offer the only reasonably consistent and
serious test data facility for new radios that can be compared with similar
tests of similar products. As I said before, I don't question the data
generally, but the reviewer's conclusions are usually a little too "sweet"
to impress me.

73/72/oo, George W5YR - the Yellow Rose of Texas         
Fairview, TX 30 mi NE of Dallas in Collin county EM13qe   
Amateur Radio W5YR, in the 56th year and it just keeps getting better!
QRP-L 1373 NETXQRP 6 SOC 262 COG 8 FPQRP 404 TEN-X 11771 I-LINK 11735
Icom IC-756PRO #02121  Kachina 505 DSP  #91900556  Icom IC-765 #02437


Arthur Bernstein wrote:
> 
> Whether you like QST's methodology or if their intentions are altruistic or
> if they are "cuddling up" to their advertisers, they are  still light years
> ahead of CQ and any other publication in the thoroughness of testing. It
> was my impression, years ago, that CQ's "testing" was nothing more than
> shilling for the various products. Their reviews often were nothing more
> than rehashing the operating manual and company advertising. Maybe it's
> changed, as I haven't subscribed to CQ in years. 73, was even worse, as per
> the largest huckster of them all, Wayne Green!!
> 73,
> Art, N2KA