In a thread on the tentec reflector about the R-7000:
>>...but after reading the QST review...
>Well here it is from the horse's mouth. I was one of the two
>stations that were involved with the on-the-air R7000 testing.
>The article presents the R7000 in a pretty good light. It seemed
>to be worken ok for Rick when he was testen it with me.
>But...what he DID NOT mention in the article was the fact that
>I asked him to switch over to his dipole, and let me see the
>difference. Well it was about 15 DB stronger... the dipole, that
>is!
>These comercially available antennas that look pretty are
>typically a compromise. Personally, the only case where
>I would use one of these factory made verticals would be if
>I lived in an apartment, condo or sumthen like that,
>and did not have the space for a full size antenna.
There in lies the problem I have with the objectivity of QST
reviews. (Although I have found no other magazine for any other
type of gear any better.) I find that there are very few, if any,
negative reviews. Nearly all reviews are various degrees of
wonderful.
What is wrong with an objective assessment of what a antenna (or
piece of equipment) can and can not do? How can I believe any
positive review if I know that negative reviews are never made
and that the objectivity of the positive reviews are in question?
Is the editorial content of magazines compromised THAT much by
advertising that objective reviews never make the grade?
tnx es 73 de Conway Yee, N2JWQ
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
Submissions: tentec@contesting.com
Administrative requests: tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-tentec@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|