[TenTec] QST Reviews

[Merle Bone]

"Don't read QST or eHam reviews.  Learn to read
ARRL's Expanded Test Reports.  The real unvarnished
data is there if you know how to interpret it."

I have to agree with Bill. The "subjective data" is always likely to doubted by people that use or prefer other suppliers. The expanded technical reports give enough data to let readers understand the "hard performance" of the radio. No one else really does this like the ARRL and I would pay more a year for an ARRL membership that got even more technical reports! Then people need to find a way to "hands on," if that kind of testing is critical to their decision.

On the "firmware bug issue" - this may be a new issue to be thought about and sorted out by the amateur technical community and the ARRL. It may be that the ARRL could do "periodic" follow-up reviews - based on survey data - to address the issue of "bugs" or changes in "software designed radios." 

Another issue this raises is "if the radio firmware is significantly redesigned," like the Orion V2 software, is any of the previous testing/evaluation of the radio still valid? What is the shelf life of ARRL testing of a "software defined radio"? If the signal flow has been significantly changed and the firmware radio components have undergone major redesign/programming, is the radio at all the same in performance - other then the knobs and dials? With Yaesu, ICOM and TenTec increasingly moving into the "software designed radio," we and the ARRL may have to think about how one defines when the "software wire cutters" have done so much to change the firmware that it becomes a different radio, and deserves new evaluation.  A major software redesign of a "software designed radio" may fix obvious user issues and also change the technical performance of the radio for the worse - which might take longer for users to realize.....Kind of the "other side" of an "ever evolving" software designed radio.

Merle - W0EWM