[TenTec] Re: # 4 Argonaut V ARRL Review 3rd and 2nd IPs ?

[Stuart Rohre]

Tom, hmmmm.  I don't recall ever seeing ARRL claim that their test method
was the equal of some industry method to Mil Spec or even Industrial spec.
Maybe I missed that.

Nor do I believe that Yaecomwood tests all their ham gear to tougher
commercial specs. At least I have not seen them make that claim.  If you
notice the ads for the brand that claims Mil Spec 817(?) (no QST at hand),
standard being met, it was foot noted as only for a limited vibration test.

I think the amateur products of Icom and Yaesu for example, (actually, I
know, for we have bought them and had to MODIFY them at work to meet
military prototype needs for COTS), do not test up to standards for their
commercial public safety radios or other international commercial products,
so I think you are speaking of apples and oranges.

Now some of their FM ham products do appear pretty close to their commercial
products; but I think they probably do not spend as much on testing ham gear
as on commercial or military gear that has to be type accepted, or up to
older mil specs, as the term used to be.  The market is just not that big
for ham radios to be tested as closely as higher markup commercial gear.

Also, I read ARRL reviews each time, and do not notice any great difference
in their results from most manufacturer's specs; and when there is, I seem
to recall there was always a caveat that the bandwidth choice for the
manufacturer spec was not specified or such.  Can't remember more than a
couple dB difference, unless there was a problem later fixed in the test
item by the maker,  and in some cases I seem to remember that ARRL found the
radio better than manufacturer's claim.  But, I admit, I am casual about the
testing, for it is only a hobby to me.  If I hear them, I can work them, and
don't contest that much except at Field Days or occasional DX test.

I have seen more variance in sensitivity among a Kenwood 430, a 440, and a
450 as well as an 850; than most of the differences seen in the ARRL tests
of a given radio vs. maker claims.  That did surprise me a bit, but I took
it to be variation in manufacturing, and perhaps slight improvements to
design from the 430 to the 850.

This is all I am saying, if you test with a different but consistent method,
you will likely get differing results from unspecified manufacturers spec
method, and I don't consider it a big deal.  You will fault or better the
next radio by about the same amount.

I do know that Omni 6 radios hear better than my Kenwood 450, and there are
good design reasons for that.  But so does the club Kenwood 850 hear better
than the 450 on similar antennas, and of course the 850 was the more
expensive radio than a 450.

I built up the Ten Tec superhet 1254 receiver kit, and out of the box with
only frequency cal and peaking by ear, it outperformed several rice boxes I
have used for short wave listening.  That was impressive.

The Elecraft field test model blew me away with its quiet but sensitive
receiver on 40m compared to my older radios and that subjective "testing"
means as much to me as trying to set up and actually tweak out every radio
and see if it meets specs.

I think most hams read the ARRL reviews just as one data point and ranking
method in their choosing rigs, knowing that ARRL tests will treat all radios
the same, and don't worry the fine details of the specs unless they are very
attentive to some issues.

 After dealing with the club's Yaesu 5100 dual band FM radio wide front end
next to an active airport for several years, I certainly became sensitized
to the downfalls of dual band radios front ends.  However, for most FM use,
the dual banders work just fine for most folks.  Most are not aware that
there is a trade off in most dual banders for having that multiband front
end.

I guess we can agree that our expectations are different for ARRL testing,
and that we see their description of test methods does not meet some needs.
I certainly never have agreed with everything ARRL does on either regulatory
nor publishing fronts, but they are far better (more technical) with reviews
than CQ, 73, or World Radio, all of which I get every month.  73, Stuart
K5KVH