> Steve G8IZY said:
>
>
> >Maybe... if rig reviewers in Rad Com, QST etc.paid
> > more attention to these sort of design defects,
> >then things would improve. A tall order? - possibly
> > the magazines would just lose advertisers!
>
> The advertisers are and publishers are in a cleft stick though
> - they heavily rely on each other. In point of fact, relatively
> few amateurs have any problem with these design faults.
You guys should see how difficult it is to correct an error in a
review, and your tune would change!
I can't speak for radios, but with other things the ARRL has a mind
of it's own. Even if you clearly demonstrate a mistake, they won't
generally correct it.
For the ife of me, I don't know where the idea they listen to
manufacturer's comes from.
I think the reason they publish results at wide signal spacings is
because they simply don't know any better.
> Mark commented:
> >It seems so ass-backwards to push for better RX
> >performance with higher dynamic range, better filtering etc
Receivers are pretty poor for close-spaced dynamic range. DSP
based radios are generally the worse of the lot! IMO, we need more
pushing for close space tests, and the FT-1000MP needs a key
click adjustment! They remind me of the old Heath DX100's.
73, Tom W8JI
w8ji@contesting.com
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
|