K4IA wrote:
I still want to know why there are so few Orion reviews on eHam. I put a lot
more credence in eHam (not individual reviews but the consensus) than a puff
piece in QST. Has QST ever reviewed a radio it didn't like?
Craig, I believe you're being a little harsh on ARRL. If
you learn how to interpret the DATA in ARRL's Product Tests,
and especially their Extended Test Reports, I believe you will
find that there is much more substance than puff in ARRL Reports.
Quite frankly, nowhere else will you find laboratory measurements
of performance indicators like IMDDR3, BDR, IP3, etc. I put
much more faith in ARRL's measurements than I do reports by
users that may not use their Orions under the same conditions I
do. I don't usually pay as much attention to the ARRL writeups
(which can be fluffy), but their Extended Test Reports contain a
wealth of objective lab measurements not available elsewhere.
CQ's reviews are totally devoid of any measurements so I tend
to put them in the fluff and puff file (the circular one).
Speaking of ARRL Test Reports, I believe Orion's could be
coming very soon from what W4PA said October 31. If it will be
published in the January 2004 QST as Scott indicated, that
could be online (Members Only section) at the end of this month.
73, Bill W4ZV
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|