Pete, you are disappointing me! Every posting you have made lately I agree
with 100%!
Every radio has warts in design, implementation and ultimate dealer/factory
support. I do not believe that any one manufacturer has cornered the market
on covering all bases.
For example, it is my experience and that of many friends that the
likelihood is very high that an Icom IC-756PRO2 or an IC-746PRO will play
directly out of the box with all advertised features working to spec and
will continue to do so without requiring any mods, updates, or whatever for
at least the duration of the warranty period. Every Icom I have had since
1982 has met that description.
On the other hand, we read on this list of a fairly large number of ORIONs
that do not play right out of the box, that have some features not yet
working properly or at all, and that seem to require ongoing upgrades and
firmware changes to correct various irregularities that seemingly would have
been caught and corrected prior to shipment.
Now, does either extreme make one or the other the "perfect" radio for any
particular person? Of course not!
The Icoms come out with certain ARRL Labs numbers. Eventually I suppose that
ARRL Labs will perform their standard suite of tests upon the ORION and come
out with its set of numbers. What do these numbers mean?
In the overall context of which radio is "best" for a given person, probably
very little. Some numbers will be better for one brand, some will be worse.
Both will reflect quality top-tier radios with probably only minor
differences due to differences in design architecture and implementation..
But as you point out, how the user holds the rifle and applies his inherent
skills to the firing will ultimately determine which is best for *him*.
It is unfortunate that the ORION is forced into this "competition" prior to
being fully developed and tested, etc. but as long as the company is able to
continue its development efforts and the users are willing to go along, then
eventually the goals will be reached. And many people will ultimately have
the radio that fits *them*.
Objective test results give a level playing field for making gross
comparisons as to likely performance in various areas. But only until the
actual user sits before a rig and uses it in his shack to do his brand of
hamming in his manner does the process of determining "best" take on real
meaning.
I am all for detailed testing and hope that ARRL Labs continue to improve
their equipment and protocols. But I also would agree with you, Pete, in
cautioning people making buying decisions to avoid placing undue emphasis
upon the 'numbers" just as they should avoid subjective anecdotal statements
of preference as applying to them as well.
Nothing is as good a test as living with a radio for a few days or weeks
doing what one usually does with a radio in pursuing his/her own interests
and activities. Lacking that opportunity, then one must necessarily look to
test results and the experience of others, taking into account the inherent
biases and other personal factors, including brand loyalty, that invariably
influence reported results.
Pete, we need to find something to mildly disagree over!
73/72, George
Amateur Radio W5YR - the Yellow Rose of Texas
Fairview, TX 30 mi NE of Dallas in Collin county EM13QE
"In the 57th year and it just keeps getting better!"
<mailto:w5yr@att.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: <AC5E@aol.com>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Product Reviews
>
> In a perfect world objective testing - numbers only - would provide all
the
> information needed to make a buying decision. But this lacks a heap of
being a
> perfect world.
>
> For example, a long time buddy just bought a new and highly touted new
target
> rifle. After the initial sightning in and enough rounds to take the
roughness
> off the bore he asked me to go to the range with him. I did - bringing my
pet
> 40 X with me.
>
> Off the sandbags with a mechanical release his new "Brand A" did very
well,
> shooting groups well within a centimeter at 100 Meters. But my well broken
in
> rifle did virtually as well. In a real shoot off it would have been very
much a
> horse race.
>
> But offhand - standing on our hind legs and pulling the trigger
ourselves -
> one of us won. When we changed rifles, the best shot won again, proving
only
> who is the most accurate shot. The offhand practice did not prove or even
> indicate which is the best rifle. But it did prove to both of us which
rifle has
> the most comfortable stock, which of these single shots is easist to load
on
> the shoulder, and a few other details.
>
> Now, people vary enormously. One person can comprehend speech that's a
> jumbled in the noise mess to another. One person can copy code that's
virtually
> inaudible to another. An objective test provides a hard measure of
general
> performance. An honest and unbiased subjective test can provide an
indication of
> which unit provides the best performance, is the easist to use, etc.,
etc.. That
> is especially true when some recognized standard unit is used against the
> unit being tested.
>
> Is the "Superblaster 2700X" easier to use than the old gold standard
"Magnum
> 9900?" Does it "go where you point it?" Or will it take the unwary into
the
> ditch? Are controls intuitive or will the proud new owner need someone
> standing over them to prompt them for the first six months of ownership?
Do controls
> fall naturally under the hand or is it a long stretch from one control to
the
> one most likely to be used next. What happens when a thunderstorm moves
in -
> do you get a series of pops or a sustained roar? And most important for
many
> on this reflector - how much more tired will the operator be 28 hours into
a
> 30 hour contest than if they used the standard rig?
>
> Those are factors that are not amenable to objective tests. It really
takes
> both kinds to give a prospective user a good indication of his probable
> satisfaction level. But subjective testing is worthless when the tester
starts out
> with "it's not my favorite brand so it must not be up to par" in mind.
>
> 73 Pete Allen AC5E
|