Good pointt, Joel. Even within the top group, there are big differences
in sub receivers, e.g. the Orion's is general coverage while the K3 is ham
band only with better performance. Ye pays yer money....
As for me, I bought a 75S-1 in the 1970s to use as a second receiver,the
way we now use sub receivers. It's still hooked up to the KWM-2, making up
what I call an "S/line and a half," i.e. one transmitter with two
receivers. I hope my T-T rigs last as long. Come to think of it, I hope we
do.
73 Ray
In a message dated 9/8/2011 6:49:35 P.M. GMT Standard Time,
jrhallas@optonline.net writes:
Ray,Very true, but keep in mind that the feature sets are different
between the first two groups. All the radios in the first group either have,
or
offer, a second receiver. This was a major differentiator for me.If you
don't want or need the second receiver you can indeed get top notch
performance
from a radio in the second group.73, Joel Hallas, W1ZR----- Original
Message -----From: Rsoifer@aol.comDate: Thursday, September 8, 2011 11:16
amSubject: Re: [TenTec] ARRL ReviewsTo: tentec@contesting.com> 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 th
e > 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 v
ery 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
|