[TenTec] ARRL Reviews

[Jerry Haigwood]

Ray,
   It is also interesting that the "old" Corsair rates in the top 25 radios.
It is ahead of such radios as the Icom IC756ProII, PROIII, Collins S-Line,
and a whole lot more.  It probably sounds a whole lot better without all the
digital noise too!
Jerry W5JH


-----Original Message-----
From: tentec-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:tentec-bounces at contesting.com]
On Behalf Of Rsoifer at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 10:16 AM
To: tentec at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews

Hi all,
 
Since we're into subjective impressions, I'll put on my flak jacket and  
share mine.
 
Looking at Rob Sherwood's table, the top six receivers (FT-5000, K3,  
Perseus, Flex 5000, Orion I and II) look pretty much indistinguishable.
One 
spec is a little better, another a little worse.  Then there is a small
step 
down to the next level (Eagle, Flex 3000, etc.)  Those are almost as  good, 
and generally less expensive.  They perform about as well as the top  group 
in all but the most demanding situations, and represent excellent value  for

money.
 
Older radios generally rank lower in the table, but as has been said by  
others, are just as good as when we bought them.  I have fun with my  KWM-2
as 
well as my Orion II.
 
73 Ray W2RS
 
 
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 9/8/2011 1:39:10 P.M. GMT Standard Time,  
cw_de_n5op at sbcglobal.net writes:

Perfect!  Absolutely perfect. Kudos to you, good  Sir!

Kim N5OP

At 05:59 AM 9/8/2011, you wrote:
>I offer  three personal observations on the new radio - receiver list  
debate:
>
>         1)   As new  radios come to market, they may (should) be
>       expected to perform better than older models.    This
>         sort of quality attrition  happens in most all fields of
>          endeavor.  New models outpace older ones.    But...
>
>         2)  No matter how  much better a new radio is compared to
>       your old rig, ... your old radio does not suddenly  start
>         performing worse.  It is  still the radio it always was.
>
>       3)  These receiver rankings are sorted only by  close-in
>         third order intercept  specifications.   Some of the lower
>       rated radios appear to have superior or equivalent  ratings
>         on other  specs.
>
>
>Therefore,  I don't feel bad that my Omni  VII was once rated one of the
>best receivers when it was released in  '07, but has fallen a couple of
>places on these receiver rating  lists.   It performs the same today as
>it did back  then.   I have not lost any ground, nor have I been set
>back,  just because the Eagle, or the TX-590s  have better close-in  third
>order intercept specifications.   I expect my new  TX-590s to have better
>numbers... as does the new TT Eagle.    My Omni VII has not lost any
>ground - the others just pushed the  envelope out a little farther, but
>the Omni VII is just as good as it  always was.   Same for the Orion II
>and other rigs.   No one took a step backward.
>
>I suspect this take could  explain why so many Collins owners continue to
>exhibit tremendous pride  and experience such enjoyment with those
>vintage rigs.   They  are the same great radios they always were, despite
>the fact newer,  improved radios have come along.
>
>Besides, these receiver test  charts are of limited utility as they are
>sorted for one, albeit  important, factor.  But, this overlooks, and
>overshadows, the fact  some of the "lesser" radios have superior figures
>and better  specifications in other categories.   They may also  have
>other features you might prefer.   Therefore, one needs  to look at ALL
>the specifications before making a purchase decision, or  before one
>decides his rig has been rendered  obsolete.
>
>Therefore, I am not losing any sleep over the rating  my rig currently
>has.  I plan on shamelessly enjoying my Omni VII  for a very long time -
>without worry the new Eagle has a superior  close-
>in-third-order-intercept score.   The Omni VII works  as well as it did
>when I purchased it a couple years  back.
>
>Besides, I figure I have a limited budget, and good  enough is just
>that... good enough.
>
>This is just MY  take, anyway... your mileage may differ for various
>multiple  reasons.
>
>------------------
>Happy  Trails.
>
>=======================  Richards / K8JHR   =========================
>
>On 9/2/2011 23:49, Ron Castro  wrote:
> > How true!  There is no scientific correlation between  numbers 
published on
> > the page of a magazine and what is actually  coming out of your speaker 
or
> > headphones.  If they correct  the numbers it won't improve the 
> performance of
> > your  radio at  all.
>_______________________________________________
>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

_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec