[TenTec] ARRL Icom 7800 Review Published

[ac5e at comcast.net]

Any advertiser supported publication that prints equipment reviews MUST give due consideration to all aspects of the situation.  An editor must  consider who they want to lay off before they print a suggestion that the best thing to do with that box of ill made trash would be a thirty foot drop onto concrete, followed by a ride in the dustpan to the ashcan.  Print many seriously negative reviews and the powers that be will seriously consider laying you off. Just before the publication folds for lack of advertising revenue. 

However,  there are two parts to every review; the descriptive text and the standard test results.  The standard test results in QST's sidebar are generally both useful and accurate. At least sufficently accurate to be well within reason considering manufacturing and measurement tolerances.  

The descriptive text is the part I generally question.  I do not believe you can get a useful test when you give the resident Ducati wonk the latest Duke for the weekend and requre "test results" by "eight ayem Monday latest."  By the nature of things, every "evolutionary improvement" will be praised to the skies - and every devolution will be studiously ignored.  

A filler comment such as "The first thing that struck me as positive was the fact that in order to hook up my AL-1200 amp to the '7800, all I had to do was connect an audio cable with RCA plugs to each box" leaves me wondering why it took so many words to say so little.  "The amp relay connection takes an RCA plug" is sufficently verbose.  The comments about the "marvelling" at the receiver sensitivity are also prolix -  and are possibly misleading,  since he makes a definite statement that he has not tried an Orion.  

I could extend this considerably, since each of the various individual commentaries reveal as much or more about the author than the faults and the virtues of the IC-7800.  

To be fair, those who write for hobby publications are not well renumerated. If I were an inkslinging ham with a TS930 and were given an opportunity to use a rig selling for a few months pay over a weekend I would be both grateful and effusive. Although I would try not to gush to the extent seen here. 

 And to be fair to ARRL labs and QST,  reviews are like angry words.  No matter how you try or how wrong they were  or what has changed, words cannot be effectively recalled. Once they are in print, neither can reviews.     

My results with popular imported rigs have been spotty at best.  I have seven hams in the family, and it always seems one of the kids needs a new rig. I have bought more than a few first production rigs that were well built and  performed well, and then given the kids units from subsequent production runs that apparently had apparently been made of the cheapest components available, by unskilled labor, at some sweat shop far far away from those overseeing quality control.  Junk is junk, even if you spell it junque. 

It's not the reviewers fault when a manufacturer sacrifices quality and performance for profit in the second production run. It's the makers fault. 

But, unfair and unreasonable as it is, it is all too human to blame the publication and not the equipment maker when QC takes an extended trip to the infernal regions.   

73  Pete Allen  AC5E


> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tentec-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:tentec-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of SS409SS at aol.com
> Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 6:41 AM
> To: tentec at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] ARRL Icom 7800 Review Published
> 
> 
> In a message dated 6/26/2004 11:44:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> nq5t at comcast.net writes:
> 
> >
> > They DO seem to like it ..
> >
> > Grant/NQ5T
> 
> 
>   As we know, the ARRL likes the advertizing $$ as well. Just ask John Bee,
> when we told him about the problems with the FT100 he weighed what was worth
> more when deciding if he should inquire further. Guess what, the almighty
> dollar took the front seat in his decision.