Paul K8QT wrote:
Again ..... comparisons can only be meaningful on current production runs to current production runs. NOT an "obsolete" version to "current" production version.
Perhaps in a perfect world you are correct but in a real world things
don't usually work that way. The ARRL will perform product reviews when
they are provided a review sample and when they have the resources
available to perform it. Not in this world will they ever have the
resources to keep re-testing current production samples of all rigs
whenever a new one emerges. I guess therefore, we as potential
purchasers will have to interpret the published facts based upon our
later knowledge of change. Or I guess we could stump up the cash to
fund a re-test of the rigs we are particularly interested in at a time
that is relevent to us. Though the cost of the testing could likely
approach or even exceed the cost of both rigs being tested so I doubt
many would want to entertain that suggestion.
As the owner and assembler of K2 S/N 997 and K2 S/N 3483 and having
fitted all enhancements to S/N 997, I don't believe the test of a S/N
3000+ K2 would make any material difference to the ARRL measured
performance. Of course Eric and Wayne may disagree, as might you, BUT
unless someone is up for carrying the cost of a retest the issue is moot!
Bob, 5B4AGN, P3F
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|