In a message dated 7/6/03 9:57:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
K3MIY@csonline.net writes:
> Most distributors of gear have test gear that does this now. This means
> that today's ham can use the software to tweak his rig to his heart's
> content, at which point product reviews will be totally meaningless. Who
> knows, he might even learn something in the process.
>
Yea, right!
Radios are made of hardware, particular active devices and specific
arrangement of components called design. Software can only do tweaking of
variables
(switches, "pots", etc.) in the design, if hardware don't got it, the tweaking
won't do it, there is nothing or not much to tweak.
Most of the reviews in the magazines are "nice" intended not to upset or harm
the manufacturer that pays for the ads, especially in the ham radio world.
QST is trying a little harder but still overlooking some important aspects of
radio performance, but trying to listen and doing the balancing act.
"Reviews" on eHam and other places are mostly "patriotic" reviews by happy or
peeved off owners. Notice how most people dumped all other rigs and are happy
with their (insert your make here) rig.
Looks like there is a need for as unbiased as possible review. Internet
provides ways of publishing without advertising support. The question is, would
(cheap) hams be willing to pay for the in-depth review by someone who is top
notch designer, top notch contest and DX - weak signal operator and generally
familiar with existing technology? In addition there would be collection of
updates and modifications, in depth technical and operating manuals with
suggestions for settings for particular situations and reports of defects and
problems.
This would allow potential buyer to look at rigs of particular price range and
read up details and decide what suits him best for his particular way of
hamming. Just like with automotive products, there are uses for Ferraris,
Corvettes, Jeeps, station wagons, sedans, SUVs and trucks, the same goes for
our radio
gear, different classes and requirements for different rigs.
Just like car with black smoke spewing exhaust cannot be tolerated on the
highways, the same way clicksing CW from the transceiver has no place on our
bands. There are parameters and specs that have to be maintained regardless of
the
class and they have to be tested and made known. Those "nice" reviews in
magazines didn't bring that up, so "happy" manufacturers keep spewing clicksing
rigs (CW is not important - dying anyway) or rigs that produce huge spikes of
RF
at the beginning of the CW, killing and tripping amplifiers or producing wide
splatters.
Are we ready for unbiased review for a buck? It could be done.
Yuri, K3BU
p.s. My Orion arrived, greeted me with stiff tuning knobs, I managed to fight
off the resistance and poor grip of skirts to loosen them up, so I am already
one happy owner (so far).
|