As has been pointed out in previous postings, there is precious little
information available (outside of the manufacturer) to guide a ham's
transceiver purchase. ARRL is one source, and people with good test
equipment and know-how, like W8JI, are another.
W8JI focuses on 160, which is not my band of choice. Nevertheless, Rauch
does make some comments of general applicability. His war on key clicks is
an example. (Regarding key clicks, Rauch's most recent postings have been
quite pessimistic about getting manufacturers to improve in this area. I am
sure one of the aspects of the ORION Rauch will closely examine is the
shape of the CW keying envelope, something we know Ten-Tec has addressed.)
I have been pleasantly surprsied to discover that the keying bandwidth of
my IC-746PRO is relatively modest, about 1 kHz, compared to the atrocious
2.5+ kHz of my FT-920. The QSK performance of the IC-746PRO, moreover, is
smooth as silk, not thumpy like the FT-920. Another surprise. (I haven't
had a chance to make an evaluation of my new/used OMNI VI since it is back
at Ten-Tec for repairs.)
With regard to the ARRL written reviews, I given them the benefit of the
doubt as to the integrity of the writer-upper. However, it seems that with
the depaqrture in the mid-90s of Rus Healy, who operated largely CW, there
has not been a reviewer who is a CW fanatic. Healy did very good reviews,
for example, of the FT-1000D and the original OMNI VI. The folks who have
been writing the reviews lately seem to be diligent, but their interest
seems to be more in SSB ragchews than in CW DX and contests. Others
evidence preferences for VHF and digital modes. So we end up with a
catch-as-catch-can write-up from the perspective of a particular reviewer's
preferences, the end product often being not all that helpful from my point
of view. As has been pointed out, the QST review of the Argonaut V did not
do this fine rig any favors. I thought it deserved more positive coverage.
Another issue is that ARRL's standards have slipped. Early and mid-90s
reviews would mention critically if a transceiver's 3d-order IMD on
transmit fell below -30dB. These days, a -24dB IMD finding elicits no
particular response from the reviewer (Cf. IC-703 review).
I think this reflects the precarious budgetary problems at Newington
(second or third year of deficits?). My solution is to promote membership
in the ARRL so it does not continue to have to operate on a shoestring.
With ARRL on a sound financial footing, the reviewers can become more
independent of QST's advertisers and the reviews can be of greater value to
the members.
Finally, ARRL's lab tests only one sample of a transceiver, and sometimes I
scratch my head as to the numbers. A case in point: the 3d-order intercept
point reported for the Argonaut V.
We all await with interest what QST reports about the ORION, probably in
late fall or early winter. (I hope they wait until they can get a couple of
CW contests under their belt before publishing the review.)
73,
John
|