Hi,
I enjoy RadCom, and the reviews are more direct than in our
US journals, but you have to read the text fully to get the
full story, and not just scan the Headline and the
Conclusions.
For example, the June 2003 issue reviewed the Yaesu FT857.
The text said
The strong signal performance [intercept and dynamic range]
was rather poor close-in but fairly average at wider
spacings where it was significantly better than the FT-100.
The in-band distortion was poor particularly at fast AGC
settings.
and
Often the front-end attenuator needed to be switched in to
give clean results.
and
However, even on headphones there was a certain roughness to
the SSB audio quality...
There were other negative comments, also that took the radio
to a place on my list where I wouldn't consider a purchase.
But the CONCLUSION:
The FT-857 is an excellent do-everything radio for mobile
use and where space is at a premium.
So they present the technical data in charts and tables and
graphs, and comment honestly in the text on shortcomings,
but spare the wrath of the manufacturers by how they phrase
their conclusions, I think. Diplomacy ;)
I can live with that. Its a reasonable compromise, and any
thinking ham can discern what the radios are really like
after reading a RadCom review ;)
Since you got me to post to the list, I will add that
1. I don't own a Ten-Tec yet.
2. I have been very impressed with what I have heard about
the Orion on the list.
3. I have been very impressed with the responses of Ten-Tec
personnel on the list.
4. I have been very impressed with what I have heard about
the response of Ten-Tec in general.
5. I am not at all worried about the infrequent, less than
enthusiastic anecdotal A/B comparisons involving the Orion.
It is a complicated radio and takes time to learn to use
properly. One must be careful to not quickly declare a
malfunction with any new gear or software when the problem
is really an EBKAC [error between keyboard and chair]. Said
another way, there will never be a book "The Orion for
Dummies", as it is not a product suitable for that audience.
But as more experience is gained with the radio, we will
all emerge from the ranks of the dummies and be able to use
the radio to its full potential. I've found the comments on
this list, and the Orion Optimization Document by by W4PA
and KF6DX particularly helpful.
6. I greatly look forward to getting an Orion when I can
afford to do so, based on what I have heard/read about it
over the past year, what I saw at Dayton and what the
helpful Ten-Tec people told me at Dayton, and most
importantly, based on what I have gleaned from subscribing
to this list.
PS My current commercial rigs are an Elecraft K2 and a
Yaesu FT1000MP Mk V. I am in a very high noise environment,
and the K2 is able to stand up to that environment but the
FT1000 cannot. I already am confident that the Orion will
far exceed the FT1000 in this regard. The primary uses of
the FT1000 here are two: (1) as a stand to bring the K2 up
to comfortable operating height for me. And (2) I use the
FT1000 as a transmitter when I am using one of the homebrew
receivers here. The homebrew receiver sends a CAT signal to
the FT1000 to put it on frequency, so I have a transceiver
with decent strong signal tolerance and excellent weak
signal performance but with the FT1000's transmit
performance.
Thanks everyone for sharing your knowledge!
73,
Roger
W3SZ
----- Original Message Follows -----
> In a message dated 07/06/2003 13:00:58 Eastern Daylight
> Time, K3BU@aol.com writes:
>
> << Looks like there is a need for as unbiased as possible
> review. >>
>
> Don't know if it is still true, but RADCOM (a/k/a "Radio
> Communications", the Journal of the Radio Society of
> Great Britain) used to be famous for bluntly honest
> reviews. If they found a fault, they reported it. Don't
> know if this is still true; any RADCOM readers on the
> reflector?
>
> k3yd
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
73,
Roger Rehr
W3SZ
FN20ah
http://www.qsl.net/w3sz
|