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 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>
|