A recent posting on another reflector lists some variables that can affect
A/B transceiver comparisons, and have prompted the following observations.
It probably is a practical impossibility to come up with a valid real-world
ranking of transceivers, given the limited resources of the typical ham.
Time of year, propagation conditions, location, antenna types and
condition, operator skills and preferences, modifications made, all play a
critical role. We are not the U.S. military, for instance, which can spend
hundreds of thousands of dollars on extensive field testing of new equipment.
The best that can be expected, perhaps, is for each of us to try out
several transceivers over a considerable period of time and see which ones
work best for us. The choices we make may not be consistent with the
choices of other hams, and they may not reflect the numbers and opinions
published by the ARRL or other labs, which are of limited value in any
event. No, our choices of "favorite" transceivers simply represent what
works best over time, at a particular location, for each of us.
A case in point: an article entitled, "Thoughts on Specifications," by
Willem Boss, A Dutchman who tests radios, appeared on the Radio Nederlands
web site some time ago. (Boss' article was published in the 1997 "World
Radio-TV Handbook.") Among the points Boss makes is that "testing receivers
is not as easy as it seems." For one thing, ". . . a receiver review
without practical listening tests isn't much use . . ." but at the same
time ". . . test results based on listening only are subjective and highly
influenced by the antenna type and the local situation where a receiver is
being tested." Boss notes that a reviewer in the U.S. does not face the
"tremendous problems" posed by the extremely high signal levels on the 41
and 49 meter bands that exist in Europe, hence "you can expect a better
handling of strong signals by any receiver outside the European continent."
Boss goes on, "Receiver technology is a complicated field . . . (and) . . .
worldwide only a handful of reviewers have the equipment, the time and the
knowledge to measure receeivers . . ."
So, assuming Boss knows what he's talking about, the A/B comparisons we
make may be fun, but they ain't scientific, and certainly are not definitive.
73,
John, W3ULS
|