Jerry,
I've never had a Corsair, but know what you mean. In the 1980s my main HF
radio was the FT-102/FV-102DM. The receiver was better with the digital
VFO switched out.
73 Ray.
In a message dated 9/8/2011 3:48:21 P.M. GMT Standard Time, jerry@w5jh.net
writes:
Ray,
It is also interesting that the "old" Corsair rates in the top 25 radios.
It is ahead of such radios as the Icom IC756ProII, PROIII, Collins S-Line,
and a whole lot more. It probably sounds a whole lot better without all
the
digital noise too!
Jerry W5JH
-----Original Message-----
From: tentec-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com]
On Behalf Of Rsoifer@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 10:16 AM
To: tentec@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews
Hi all,
Since we're into subjective impressions, I'll put on my flak jacket and
share mine.
Looking at Rob Sherwood's table, the top six receivers (FT-5000, K3,
Perseus, Flex 5000, Orion I and II) look pretty much indistinguishable.
One
spec is a little better, another a little worse. Then there is a small
step
down to the next level (Eagle, Flex 3000, etc.) Those are almost as
good,
and generally less expensive. They perform about as well as the top
group
in all but the most demanding situations, and represent excellent value
for
money.
Older radios generally rank lower in the table, but as has been said by
others, are just as good as when we bought them. I have fun with my
KWM-2
as
well as my Orion II.
73 Ray W2RS
In a message dated 9/8/2011 1:39:10 P.M. GMT Standard Time,
cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net writes:
Perfect! Absolutely perfect. Kudos to you, good Sir!
Kim N5OP
At 05:59 AM 9/8/2011, you wrote:
>I offer three personal observations on the new radio - receiver list
debate:
>
> 1) As new radios come to market, they may (should) be
> expected to perform better than older models. This
> sort of quality attrition happens in most all fields of
> endeavor. New models outpace older ones. But...
>
> 2) No matter how much better a new radio is compared to
> your old rig, ... your old radio does not suddenly start
> performing worse. It is still the radio it always was.
>
> 3) These receiver rankings are sorted only by close-in
> third order intercept specifications. Some of the lower
> rated radios appear to have superior or equivalent ratings
> on other specs.
>
>
>Therefore, I don't feel bad that my Omni VII was once rated one of the
>best receivers when it was released in '07, but has fallen a couple of
>places on these receiver rating lists. It performs the same today as
>it did back then. I have not lost any ground, nor have I been set
>back, just because the Eagle, or the TX-590s have better close-in third
>order intercept specifications. I expect my new TX-590s to have better
>numbers... as does the new TT Eagle. My Omni VII has not lost any
>ground - the others just pushed the envelope out a little farther, but
>the Omni VII is just as good as it always was. Same for the Orion II
>and other rigs. No one took a step backward.
>
>I suspect this take could explain why so many Collins owners continue to
>exhibit tremendous pride and experience such enjoyment with those
>vintage rigs. They are the same great radios they always were, despite
>the fact newer, improved radios have come along.
>
>Besides, these receiver test charts are of limited utility as they are
>sorted for one, albeit important, factor. But, this overlooks, and
>overshadows, the fact some of the "lesser" radios have superior figures
>and better specifications in other categories. They may also have
>other features you might prefer. Therefore, one needs to look at ALL
>the specifications before making a purchase decision, or before one
>decides his rig has been rendered obsolete.
>
>Therefore, I am not losing any sleep over the rating my rig currently
>has. I plan on shamelessly enjoying my Omni VII for a very long time -
>without worry the new Eagle has a superior close-
>in-third-order-intercept score. The Omni VII works as well as it did
>when I purchased it a couple years back.
>
>Besides, I figure I have a limited budget, and good enough is just
>that... good enough.
>
>This is just MY take, anyway... your mileage may differ for various
>multiple reasons.
>
>------------------
>Happy Trails.
>
>======================= Richards / K8JHR =========================
>
>On 9/2/2011 23:49, Ron Castro wrote:
> > How true! There is no scientific correlation between numbers
published on
> > the page of a magazine and what is actually coming out of your
speaker
or
> > headphones. If they correct the numbers it won't improve the
> performance of
> > your radio at all.
>_______________________________________________
>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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|