In a recent posting, N4NT wrote:
"The ARRL can run all the tests in the world comparing rigs but the only
true test is to sit two rigs side by side in the shack and use them."
I broached the subject on the 1000MP qth.net reflector recently of the
new
QST review (May 2002) of the IC-746PRO. From the specs, and reading between
the lines, this clearly is an ordinary rig. But the review by Rick
Lindquist all but says it is the latest and greatest. Some respondents to
my posting suggested they long ago adopted a skeptical attitude toward the
purple prose in QST reviews and basically ignore them. Some also pointed
out there have been, and are, major (and purposeful) deficiencies in the
lab work-ups as well.
This is troubling on at least two counts. First, it creates a major
problem for Ten-Tec's introduction of the ORION. IF the ORION proves itself
to be truly a significant improvement over existing high-end rigs, as Scott
Robbins promises, how will hams learn this fact? So many previous QST
reviews of lesser rigs, such as the IC-746PRO, have been laced with
superlatives that if QST uses lots of superlatives to describe the ORION
there is no reason why the new rig should not be viewed by skeptical hams
as just one more radio that has gotten the QST puff treatment. In other
words, for such a high-end rig as the ORION, a good review in QST is not
worth much. Conclusion: it's going to be devilishly hard for Ten-Tec to get
the word out IF the ORION turns out to be a truly superior radio.
Second, for new hams. What are brand-new hams to think when they pick
up
the May QST and are told in so many words they need look no further than
the IC-746PRO if they want a state-of-the-art rig? In a few years they
probably will find out the truth, but by then the ARRL will have sown more
skepticism.
73,
John, W3ULS
73,
John, W3ULS
|