Software performance (stability, bugs, etc.) is not easy to capture in
lab tests, or even in casual operating. (Too many modes) Traditional
RF specs are a lot easier to check. Look & feel, personality, and
"smell" as reported in QST and elsewhere are OK as far as they go. It
would also be helpful to have a "red team" challenge -- somebody
deliberately looking for all the gotchas. That does come out on the
Internet, but it's hard to calibrate what we are reading. Which
problems come from cockpit error, from unit-to-unit variations, from
design or software architecture, etc.
The non-traditional performance issues come from the digital /
software content that makes modern rigs (especially the high-end ones)
vastly more complex than your grandfather's equipment.
Along the lines that Bob AA6VB was suggesting, a modern $3-15K rig
carries a lot more user risk than a premium Collins rig did in its
day. A TS-520S (like my second rig) is a good reality check, if
you're just looking for fun on the air.
73 Martin AA6E
On 2/21/06, John Nason <jmnason@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think the review is one piece of information. The
> test data is another and the expanded review is the
> best if there is one for a rig. The testing is
> standard and you can't gloss over that. Some
> marketing guy probably reads the text part of the
> article to sure there is no offense but the ARRL Labs
> measurements are all telling.
>
> 73,
> John NA9U
>
--
martin.ewing@gmail.com
http://blog.aa6e.net
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|