OK, but then they should NOT make statements like "the best we've ever seen"
because they mislead people to believe the entire rig is the best they've
ever seen.
-----Original Message-----
From: tentec-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com]
On Behalf Of Tracy, Michael, KC1SX (by way of Bill Tippett
<btippett@alum.mit.edu>)
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 7:18 AM
To: tentec@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TenTec] ARRL Review of FT9000
(I forwarded Michels' response since he is not a
member of this list...de W4ZV)
Hi Bill,
> ARRL should make some attempt to normalize the
> IMD and BDR results for a given MDS sensitivity, so
> that readers are not misled by results with vastly
> different sensitivity settings.
I have to disagree, as this would mislead folks even more. There never has
been a *single* number that defines receiver performance, even if many of
the commercial and military market transceivers try to imply that IP3 is
it. Anyone comparing transceivers for potential purpose should weigh the
relative aspects of both dynamic range and sensitivity. In this respect,
it is no different than picking a car based on 0-60 times without
considering top speed as well (which might be 65 in some cases!).
73, Michael, KC1SX
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|