Ed, I tend to agree with you on this one. There must be more going on here
than meets the eye, so to speak.
I strongly suspect that the display being mono is one of the cost
trade-offs that had to be made to pay for all those "narrow roofing
filters" and all the circuitry, etc. it takes to support them. Along those
lines, I wonder how many potential Orion owners have considered what will
happen to the "about $3300" price when you add in the three optional
filters at probably $125-$150 each plus a power supply plus a speaker, etc.
As I posted once before, you spend 99% of your time before a radio looking
at the front panel. If it offends you in any way, it will become a
continuing source of disappointment, no matter how well the radio might
play. One poster said that appearance didn't matter since he was going to
computer-control the Orion and never even look at the panel.
Well, I spent about 1-1/2 years driving a Kachina with a computer display
for a panel, and when I got the Icom 756PRO and got back to a real radio
with real controls and a really well-done LCD display, I felt like I had
come home again. I still have the Kachina and the IC-765 I had before that
and still use them both frequently. But, I enjoy using the PRO much more
than I ever did either of the other two.
Cosmetics do matter - in the long run. I cannot find any reasonable
justification for not making a radio look as good as it plays. Even though
each of us has a different notion as to what looks "good" there are enough
different designs out there by now for the basic likes and dislikes of the
marketplace to have been determined.
Your Heathkit analogy is quite appropriate here. I had a full wall-to-wall
Heathkit KW station in the early 70's and I probably could hear and work as
many stations as anyone with my little TH6DXX and 50 ft tower in the city,
but I always felt inferior to the Collins boys because of the cheap
appearance of the green boxes.
I wish the Orion well, but I sure don't understand why the design is
retroactive to the mid-90's in a leading-edge product. Compare the
architecture of the RX340 to that of the Orion and then ponder what it is
that those added narrow roofing filters are really doing that makes it
superior to the 340 - a receiver-only that already sells for $700 more than
the Orion is priced . . . differentiation in the marketplace? Or a way to
actually lower the price at the cost of more components, etc.? Subtle
transmitter considerations?
I'll give TT one thing: they sure know how to whip up a feeding frenzy in
the marketplace! I never saw so much curiosity and excitement about a new
product. Good job, TT!
73/72/oo, George W5YR - the Yellow Rose of Texas
Fairview, TX 30 mi NE of Dallas in Collin county EM13qe
Amateur Radio W5YR, in the 56th year and it just keeps getting better!
QRP-L 1373 NETXQRP 6 SOC 262 COG 8 FPQRP 404 TEN-X 11771 I-LINK 11735
Icom IC-756PRO #02121 Kachina 505 DSP #91900556 Icom IC-765 #02437
Ed Tanton wrote:
>
> No Raymond... you miss the point entirely. To continue your analogy: it
> is like paying a Lincoln price-and getting mostly Lincoln stuff, but
> learning it has a 4 cylinder 2 cycle engine in it, and 13 inch wheels
> and narrow little tires. To put a 320 x 240 monochrome screen into
> anything in this day and age-much less something
> 'top-of-the-line'-reflects very poor judgement of the market's overall
> considered-requirements; the technical expertise and sophistication of
> the competition; and-in general-raises the question (in my mind) whether
> or not 'they' believe that just because it is Ten-Tec they do not have
> to at least compete-if not excel. Another company that did exactly this
> kind of thing comes to mind through all this: Heathkit. Remember them.
> Seen a new one lately?
>
> It's hard enough to sell a $3300 rig these days... and putting as
> backwards a screen as this for the first thing you see when looking at
> one, on the front panel of their best transceiver, is one of the worst
> moves I've ever seen.
>
> These are only two points, amongst many much more important factors...
> but my 1st thought upon seeing that display-having seen some of the
> other ones available for less $$$-would be: if they scrimped on this,
> then what else is not up to par technically and ergonomically.
>
> And whether it sounds like it or not, I dearly love Ten-Tec and
> Ten-Tecs... but if I had the bucks to spare tomorrow, I wouldn't
> remotely consider it.
>
> 73 Ed Tanton N4XY <n4xy@earthlink.net>
|