Re: [TenTec] IC-7800 Expanded Test Report

[Clark Savage Turner <csturner@kcbx.net>]

I know many of us bemoan the fact that QST, in their general readership 
journal, does not really "get to the point" in explaining rig 
comparisons to the lay amateur (vs. "professional" amateur, of course, 
like most of us here!)

So, one more time, I sure wish MY ARRL (I continue to be a member) 
would do me the favor of truly comparing rigs and ranking them in 
various rational ways.  They almost did this with tuners a while back, 
ranking them for internal loss, but they didn't really look at 
currently available models.  Now, is this because we are not submitting 
such articles?

What would happen if one of us wrote an article ranking receivers along 
various dimensions like close-in BDR and phase noise (co-author it with 
Sherwood?) and explain what it might mean to the average amateur vs. 
the amateur with extraordinary antennas and a quiet location?  This 
would be a service to (me!) the general amateur community and help them 
to compare rigs for their own situations and to be realistic about the 
specs of various rigs.  I am not an RF engineer, so I'm not qualified 
to write this, but I'd certainly be willing to help (edit, coordinate, 
provide rigs from my shack, do simple tests....)

Wonder what QST editors would do if the article was good and fair?  
(They are good and fair people over there).

Clark
WA3JPG


On Jul 18, 2004, at 6:48 AM, Bill Tippett wrote:

.....(comparison of Orion with 7800 specs deleted for brevity, you 
already know the story :-)

>                 So much for "astonishing, unparalleled, ultimate" and other
> unabashed Icom marketing hype about the 7800.
>
> 				73,  Bill  W4ZV

_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec