[TenTec] ARRL Review of FT9000

[Curt]

For the price they have every right to such claims. I
guess you guys burned out on the Orion and now chewing
up the Rice burners----You Got It T_O_Y_O_T_A

--- NJ0IP <Rick at DJ0IP.de> wrote:

> OK, but then they should NOT make statements like
> "the best we've ever seen"
> because they mislead people to believe the entire
> rig is the best they've
> ever seen.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tentec-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:tentec-bounces at contesting.com]
> On Behalf Of Tracy, Michael, KC1SX (by way of Bill
> Tippett
> <btippett at alum.mit.edu>)
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 7:18 AM
> To: tentec at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] ARRL Review of FT9000
> 
> (I forwarded Michels' response since he is not a
> member of this list...de W4ZV)
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
>  >          ARRL should make some attempt to
> normalize the
>  > IMD and BDR results for a given MDS sensitivity,
> so
>  > that readers are not misled by results with
> vastly
>  > different sensitivity settings.
> 
> I have to disagree, as this would mislead folks even
> more.  There never has 
> been a *single* number that defines receiver
> performance, even if many of 
> the commercial and military market transceivers try
> to imply that IP3 is 
> it.  Anyone comparing transceivers for potential
> purpose should weigh the 
> relative aspects of both dynamic range and
> sensitivity.  In this respect, 
> it is no different than picking a car based on 0-60
> times without 
> considering top speed as well (which might be 65 in
> some cases!).
> 
> 73, Michael, KC1SX
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>