For the price they have every right to such claims. I
guess you guys burned out on the Orion and now chewing
up the Rice burners----You Got It T_O_Y_O_T_A
--- NJ0IP <Rick@DJ0IP.de> wrote:
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|