Elecraft

Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology (LONG!)

Classic

List

Threaded

13 messages Options

Bill W4ZV

Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology (LONG!)

Rob Sherwood gave his permission to post this on the
FT-2000 list. Since that is public information I am posting
it here also. BTW I agree with his comments on the "new"
methodology.

73, Bill W4ZV

What has gone wrong with the ARRL's new Product Reviews in QST?

For several years I participated as part of a group of hams who were
trying to improve the testing of radios reviewed in QST. Several
reviews in the past had included questionable data on receiver
performance. A sincere effort was initiated to correct testing
problems within the lab, and hopefully to also improve the "hands on"
portion of the report.

As time went on, however, it appeared to me that the group had become
fixated on minutia, and at the same time the League was unwilling to
look at real problems in new radios being offered to the amateur
radio operator. I have not contributed lately in the steering
committee, as I felt I was banging my head against the wall.

Some of the nonsense coming out of the League has been around for a
long time, like the following quote from the 2004 review of the Icom
IC-7800. "I was able to hear calling US stations on back scatter
that I don't believe I would have heard on the '930." Did the
reviewer bother to turn on his TS-930? No, he just assumed he was
hearing something unusual on the receiver being reviewed (or hyped) in QST.

Has anything improved in 2007? The latest October review of the
FT-2000D (200 watt version of the FT-2000 that was earlier reviewed
in February) states the following: "Why would I need a 200 W
transceiver? After using it for a while, I was quite impressed with
the extra punch the '2000D offered during routine CW and SSB contacts
compared to the 100 W version." How could anyone tell a difference
of 3 dB, especially compared to operation of the FT-2000 eight months
ago? This kind of reporting is drivel.

What has changed in the ARRL reports?

Some of the changes are of minor interest, like measuring the noise
figure of an HF radio. Noise figure is generally used by VHF and UHF
enthusiasts, but adding these data points certain hurts nothing. Is
noise figure, or noise floor, or sensitivity a significant issue in
today's receivers? The 75A-4 has an excellent noise floor, as
reported in the January 2006 QST Annual Vintage Issue. Few of us
have such a quiet location that atmospheric and galactic noise don't
overshadow the noise floor of a modern receiver.

What we did get was additional confusion in the ethereal world of
third-order intercept (IP3), in place of real dynamic-range
data. The League used to measure it one way, then a second way, and
now three ways. Is this supposed to be helpful? The old way
(measured at the noise floor) was acceptable. The second way
referenced an imprecise S5, now defined as -97 dBm, and a third new
way at 0 dBm. Zero dBm is really strong, something we don't likely
ever see, unless we are working Field Day or Multi-Multi contests
from near-by transmitters. (I am assuming we are not living in
Europe with their 5 megawatt AM broadcast transmitters.)

0 dBm is S9 + 73 dB, assuming any S meter reads that level
accurately. (The Flex 5000A would actually do that.) On my IC-781,
0 dBm reads S9 + 50 with 30 dB of internal attenuation, or something
like S9 + 80 dB with the attenuators off, if the S meter would read
that high, which is does not. What happens when you put two 0 dBm
signals into an IC-781 at 20 kHz spacing? The IMD reads S9 + 18
dB. At 2 kHz spacing the IMD reads S9 + 60 dB! The 781 is not a
radio with performance problems, so what do these new and improved
measurements really mean?

If you look at the FT-2000 chart for IP3 at 2 kHz with the preamp
off, you see the IP3, measured at the noise floor, is -19 dBm. This
is not a good number, particularly since a Yaesu radio with "IPO"
enabled (no preamp) is similar to most other radios with the 10 dB
attenuator enabled. Yet if you measure the FT-2000 at 0 dBm, the IP3
calculates out to +15 dBm, which sounds good. This new information
is meaningless at best, or misleading at its worst. Why is the IP3
so high at 0 dBM? Because the inter-modulation is so strong (S9 + 60
dB) the AGC has basically turned the gain of the radio off.

Most operators will run an FT-2000 with preamp 1 enabled, since it
gives a reasonable noise floor, sensitivity and AGC threshold. Yet no
information is available with this typical setting for the newly
touted IP3 reporting method, which at 2 kHz would be about -30 dBm
for the League's sample. (The FT-2000 I measured was considerably
worse.) To get a meaningful dynamic-range number, the reader now has
to subtract two numbers. Why is this important data now missing, or
at least obfuscated? Could it be the big advertisers in QST didn't
like seeing 2 kHz dynamic-range numbers that are typically around 70
dB? Only the League could take a measured 2 kHz dynamic range of 69
dB at 2 kHz and calculate it into a +15 dBm intercept at 0 dBm. Talk
about smoke and mirrors!

The League is also going to differentiate between blocking (gain
compression) and phase noise limited (a typical problem with
synthesized radio). A narrow band audio spectrum analyzer is needed
to measure blocking this new way. (I used this method on my Flex
5000A report because of the phase noise.) The ear is not going to
hear what the analyzer sees, but the League may have made an
improvement here. At least the two measurements now will be differentiated.

What is the League completely missing?

Most new DSP radios have serious problems in QRN, and with any kind
of transient impulse noise. Has QST reported on these
problems? They have not said a word. I gave a talk on this subject
at the 2007 Dayton Hamvention, to try to point out that all is not
well in the current state of radio design. The IC-7000 is a prime
example of a radio that is nearly useless in QRN, as is the
FT-2000. Every DSP-chip based radio designed in the last few years
has an AGC problem to some extent. Fast rise-time noises are
improperly handled by the AGC, drastically exaggerating the impulse noise.

I recently finalized an AGC test, using an HP fast-rise-time pulse
generator. It basically approximates an electric fence. The
generator was set for one pulse per second. The rise time was < 10
nanosecond, with a duration of around 1 microsecond. The level was
set to 1 volt peak, to propagate a pulse well into the HF
spectrum. The first radio tested with this new method was the
FT-2000, with preamp 1 enabled. This produces a rather typical CW
noise floor of -124 dBm, an SSB sensitivity reading of 0.3 uV, and an
excellent AGC threshold of 1.3 uV. With a reference non-DSP IC-781
that has similar specifications, the S meter on the pulse test read
less than S1, barely moving the S meter. On the FT-2000 the impulse
noise read S7, pulse after pulse after pulse.

While many hams seem oblivious to these AGC problems, at least some
operators are voicing their concern. I was pleased to hear from a
new ham at a recent Colorado hamfest describe his observations on his
IC-7000. Even though he had no past frame of reference from an
analog radio, he noted how strangely his Icom reacted to the
slightest click or tick. Merely turning on a light switch would kick
his S meter up many S units. I noticed the exact same problem two
years ago on all the DSP radios coming though my lab and ham shack.

When I queried the League on their review of the IC-7000, saying they
totally missed the AGC problems on transient noise and QRN, they
simply said they listened to it in December when there was no
QRN. What is their excuse this time on the FT-2000D? This radio had
to have been evaluated during the summer of 2007 when there was
plenty of thunderstorm static.

What did the FT-2000D review happen to say about the dynamic range
numbers with the different roofing filters? After giving a full
paragraph to explaining why narrower roofing filters are usually
helpful, the League simply said, "We noticed little difference in
performance between the 3 and 6 kHz roofing filers in any of the
FT-2000s tested, though, at any signal spacing."

On the FT-2000 data recently posted on my web site, the dynamic range
actually dropped from 90 dB at 20 kHz with the 6 kHz roofing filter
to 81 dB with the 3 kHz roofing filter. At 2 kHz spacing there was
minimal difference, 63 dB (3 kHz filter) and 61 dB (6 kHz
filter). Dynamic range numbers in the low 60s are not acceptable for
serious operators.

Finally, one more bizarre comment from the "hands-on" QST
reviewer. The u-Tune unit adds modest selectivity in the front end,
and significant insertion loss, as seen by the degraded noise
floor. Yet the reviewer found the u-Tune unit to be helpful "on 20
meters before the band closed with the u-Tune unit switched on." One
wonders why a little added RF selectivity and 10 dB insertion loss
would help when the band was fading out. If this statement is
accurate, which I question, there is something seriously wrong with
this radio beyond AGC and roofing-filter problems, a subject totally
ignored by the review.

When will the day come when the information in QST is more than a
fluff review, and a free multi-page advertisement for the manufacturer?

73,
Rob Sherwood
NC0B
Rev C1

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Ed Rodriguez

Re: Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology (LONG!)

Thats is why new is not always the best, I keep my ft 736r for 6 meters and
my knwd ts 950sdx, loaded with all the options for Hf.. and I hope the K3
will out preform them all. as I expected with the FT 2000 which was a flop
for me..
Keeping my fingers crossed, on the K3 , I am on the third wave....Bill
thanks for your input..really appreciated...

de
Wp4o, Ed

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Tippett" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 7:08 PM
Subject: [Elecraft] Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology (LONG!)

>
>
> Rob Sherwood gave his permission to post this on the
> FT-2000 list. Since that is public information I am posting
> it here also. BTW I agree with his comments on the "new"
> methodology.
>
> 73, Bill W4ZV
>
>
> What has gone wrong with the ARRL's new Product Reviews in QST?
>
> For several years I participated as part of a group of hams who were
> trying to improve the testing of radios reviewed in QST. Several reviews
> in the past had included questionable data on receiver performance. A
> sincere effort was initiated to correct testing problems within the lab,
> and hopefully to also improve the "hands on" portion of the report.
>
> As time went on, however, it appeared to me that the group had become
> fixated on minutia, and at the same time the League was unwilling to look
> at real problems in new radios being offered to the amateur radio
> operator. I have not contributed lately in the steering committee, as I
> felt I was banging my head against the wall.
>
> Some of the nonsense coming out of the League has been around for a long
> time, like the following quote from the 2004 review of the Icom IC-7800.
> "I was able to hear calling US stations on back scatter that I don't
> believe I would have heard on the '930." Did the reviewer bother to turn
> on his TS-930? No, he just assumed he was hearing something unusual on
> the receiver being reviewed (or hyped) in QST.
>
> Has anything improved in 2007? The latest October review of the FT-2000D
> (200 watt version of the FT-2000 that was earlier reviewed in February)
> states the following: "Why would I need a 200 W transceiver? After using
> it for a while, I was quite impressed with the extra punch the '2000D
> offered during routine CW and SSB contacts compared to the 100 W version."
> How could anyone tell a difference of 3 dB, especially compared to
> operation of the FT-2000 eight months ago? This kind of reporting is
> drivel.
>
> What has changed in the ARRL reports?
>
> Some of the changes are of minor interest, like measuring the noise figure
> of an HF radio. Noise figure is generally used by VHF and UHF
> enthusiasts, but adding these data points certain hurts nothing. Is noise
> figure, or noise floor, or sensitivity a significant issue in today's
> receivers? The 75A-4 has an excellent noise floor, as reported in the
> January 2006 QST Annual Vintage Issue. Few of us have such a quiet
> location that atmospheric and galactic noise don't overshadow the noise
> floor of a modern receiver.
>
> What we did get was additional confusion in the ethereal world of
> third-order intercept (IP3), in place of real dynamic-range data. The
> League used to measure it one way, then a second way, and now three ways.
> Is this supposed to be helpful? The old way (measured at the noise floor)
> was acceptable. The second way referenced an imprecise S5, now defined
> as -97 dBm, and a third new way at 0 dBm. Zero dBm is really strong,
> something we don't likely ever see, unless we are working Field Day or
> Multi-Multi contests from near-by transmitters. (I am assuming we are not
> living in Europe with their 5 megawatt AM broadcast transmitters.)
>
> 0 dBm is S9 + 73 dB, assuming any S meter reads that level accurately.
> (The Flex 5000A would actually do that.) On my IC-781, 0 dBm reads S9 +
> 50 with 30 dB of internal attenuation, or something like S9 + 80 dB with
> the attenuators off, if the S meter would read that high, which is does
> not. What happens when you put two 0 dBm signals into an IC-781 at 20 kHz
> spacing? The IMD reads S9 + 18 dB. At 2 kHz spacing the IMD reads S9 +
> 60 dB! The 781 is not a radio with performance problems, so what do these
> new and improved measurements really mean?
>
> If you look at the FT-2000 chart for IP3 at 2 kHz with the preamp off, you
> see the IP3, measured at the noise floor, is -19 dBm. This is not a good
> number, particularly since a Yaesu radio with "IPO" enabled (no preamp) is
> similar to most other radios with the 10 dB attenuator enabled. Yet if
> you measure the FT-2000 at 0 dBm, the IP3 calculates out to +15 dBm, which
> sounds good. This new information is meaningless at best, or misleading
> at its worst. Why is the IP3 so high at 0 dBM? Because the
> inter-modulation is so strong (S9 + 60 dB) the AGC has basically turned
> the gain of the radio off.
>
> Most operators will run an FT-2000 with preamp 1 enabled, since it gives a
> reasonable noise floor, sensitivity and AGC threshold. Yet no information
> is available with this typical setting for the newly touted IP3 reporting
> method, which at 2 kHz would be about -30 dBm for the League's sample.
> (The FT-2000 I measured was considerably worse.) To get a meaningful
> dynamic-range number, the reader now has to subtract two numbers. Why is
> this important data now missing, or at least obfuscated? Could it be the
> big advertisers in QST didn't like seeing 2 kHz dynamic-range numbers that
> are typically around 70 dB? Only the League could take a measured 2 kHz
> dynamic range of 69 dB at 2 kHz and calculate it into a +15 dBm intercept
> at 0 dBm. Talk about smoke and mirrors!
>
> The League is also going to differentiate between blocking (gain
> compression) and phase noise limited (a typical problem with synthesized
> radio). A narrow band audio spectrum analyzer is needed to measure
> blocking this new way. (I used this method on my Flex 5000A report
> because of the phase noise.) The ear is not going to hear what the
> analyzer sees, but the League may have made an improvement here. At least
> the two measurements now will be differentiated.
>
> What is the League completely missing?
>
> Most new DSP radios have serious problems in QRN, and with any kind of
> transient impulse noise. Has QST reported on these problems? They have
> not said a word. I gave a talk on this subject at the 2007 Dayton
> Hamvention, to try to point out that all is not well in the current state
> of radio design. The IC-7000 is a prime example of a radio that is nearly
> useless in QRN, as is the FT-2000. Every DSP-chip based radio designed in
> the last few years has an AGC problem to some extent. Fast rise-time
> noises are improperly handled by the AGC, drastically exaggerating the
> impulse noise.
>
> I recently finalized an AGC test, using an HP fast-rise-time pulse
> generator. It basically approximates an electric fence. The generator
> was set for one pulse per second. The rise time was < 10 nanosecond, with
> a duration of around 1 microsecond. The level was set to 1 volt peak, to
> propagate a pulse well into the HF spectrum. The first radio tested with
> this new method was the FT-2000, with preamp 1 enabled. This produces a
> rather typical CW noise floor of -124 dBm, an SSB sensitivity reading of
> 0.3 uV, and an excellent AGC threshold of 1.3 uV. With a reference non-DSP
> IC-781 that has similar specifications, the S meter on the pulse test read
> less than S1, barely moving the S meter. On the FT-2000 the impulse noise
> read S7, pulse after pulse after pulse.
>
> While many hams seem oblivious to these AGC problems, at least some
> operators are voicing their concern. I was pleased to hear from a new ham
> at a recent Colorado hamfest describe his observations on his IC-7000.
> Even though he had no past frame of reference from an analog radio, he
> noted how strangely his Icom reacted to the slightest click or tick.
> Merely turning on a light switch would kick his S meter up many S units.
> I noticed the exact same problem two years ago on all the DSP radios
> coming though my lab and ham shack.
>
> When I queried the League on their review of the IC-7000, saying they
> totally missed the AGC problems on transient noise and QRN, they simply
> said they listened to it in December when there was no QRN. What is their
> excuse this time on the FT-2000D? This radio had to have been evaluated
> during the summer of 2007 when there was plenty of thunderstorm static.
>
> What did the FT-2000D review happen to say about the dynamic range numbers
> with the different roofing filters? After giving a full paragraph to
> explaining why narrower roofing filters are usually helpful, the League
> simply said, "We noticed little difference in performance between the 3
> and 6 kHz roofing filers in any of the FT-2000s tested, though, at any
> signal spacing."
>
> On the FT-2000 data recently posted on my web site, the dynamic range
> actually dropped from 90 dB at 20 kHz with the 6 kHz roofing filter to 81
> dB with the 3 kHz roofing filter. At 2 kHz spacing there was minimal
> difference, 63 dB (3 kHz filter) and 61 dB (6 kHz filter). Dynamic range
> numbers in the low 60s are not acceptable for serious operators.
>
> Finally, one more bizarre comment from the "hands-on" QST reviewer. The
> u-Tune unit adds modest selectivity in the front end, and significant
> insertion loss, as seen by the degraded noise floor. Yet the reviewer
> found the u-Tune unit to be helpful "on 20 meters before the band closed
> with the u-Tune unit switched on." One wonders why a little added RF
> selectivity and 10 dB insertion loss would help when the band was fading
> out. If this statement is accurate, which I question, there is something
> seriously wrong with this radio beyond AGC and roofing-filter problems, a
> subject totally ignored by the review.
>
> When will the day come when the information in QST is more than a fluff
> review, and a free multi-page advertisement for the manufacturer?
>
> 73,
> Rob Sherwood
> NC0B
> Rev C1
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

w0mu

Re: Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology (LONG!)

In reply to this post by Bill W4ZV

>
> When will the day come when the information in QST is more than a
> fluff review, and a free multi-page advertisement for the manufacturer?

When the magazine publishing costs are not paid for by the advertisers?

I can't wait to compare the K3 with my 2000 and 1000MP.

Mike W0MU
Sent using the Microsoft Entourage 2004 for Mac Test Drive.

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Buck - k4ia

Re: Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology (LONG!)

In reply to this post by Bill W4ZV

Ouch - I would say he nailed it! I have serious issues with the AGC as
handled by the Orion's DSP.

What will the K3 offer?

k4ia
Craig "Buck"
Fredericksburg, Virginia USA

************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ

Re: Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology

Administrator

In reply to this post by Bill W4ZV

Hi Bill,

I discussed the issue of the missing IMDDR3 numbers (Third Order Dynamic
Range) with Michael Tracy at the ARRL a couple of weeks ago. I expressed
my strong concern that they had dropped these from the review data and
were only posting a footnote showing how to calculate them from the IMD
level and MDS. I pointed out that we, and many others, use the IMDDR3
numbers as the primary IMD Dynamic range comparison between rigs and
that the IP3 numbers were not as useful for receiver comparisons, since
they can artificially be inflated by turning on the attenuator, or
making a receiver have low sensitivity (deaf).

They agreed that they could add the IMDDR3 numbers back in explicitly in
the data table for future reviews. There is no sinister plot here. :-)
They absolutely did NOT remove them at the request of any manufacturer.
Quite the opposite. They were almost unintentionally removed in the post
lab test formatting at the layout level for the review to save space as
the review was rushed to print. After discussing this with Michael and
Joel Hallas, the reviews manager, they said that they would add them
back in for future reviews.

Also, the multi-level IP3 numbers were in direct response to requests to
the ARRL from several members of the advisory group that Rob mentions
below. The primary reason for doing so, as mentioned in the sidebar of
the FT-2000 review, was to show how some radios depart from the ideal
IP3 curve at different levels. Personally, as I mentioned above, I feel
that IP3, while useful for testing stand alone amplifier stages, is not
useful for receiver comparisons. (Rob also alludes to this in his
comments.) The same IMD level test is run for IMDDR3 and IP3. The IP3
number is just calculated differently from the exact same IMD data. The
best comparison still is the full IMD Dynamic range, IMDDR3, which can
not be as easily manipulated by artificially changing a receiver's
sensitivity, as it can for IP3. I can make the K2 have a huge IP3 by
reducing its front end gain by another 10 dB. Would anyone want that? No.

The better test is to just take the signal generator level necessary to
create an IMD product equal to the MDS, and compare that generator level
to the MDS for the receiver. The net difference is the IMDDR3.

Michael Tracey and the ARRL test lab are above reproach in my opinion.
They take great pains to try to make accurate and useful measurements of
each rig, and they are ethical to an extreme. Michael spends an
incredible amount of time and care making each set of test measurements.
They do not change any data for big advertisers and they buy the rigs
they test on the open market. All of the recent changes were made as a
result of input from the test advisory group that Rob is a member of.
I'm sure there is still a lot of room for discussion and improvement of
the tests they run, but the ARRL does a great service for the amateur
community with their tests (as does Rob). Their ONLY goal with these
latest changes is to make the data even more useful and repeatable
between rigs.

73, Eric WA6HHQ
-----

Bill Tippett wrote:

Julian, G4ILO

Re: Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology (LONG!)

In reply to this post by w0mu

That is exactly right. And it is not a fault only of ARRL. You never
read a harsh review in RSGB RadCom or Practical Wireless over here
either. PW reviews are a total waste of time as they are completely
subjective.

--
Julian, G4ILO K2 s/n: 392 K3 s/n: ???
G4ILO's Shack: www.g4ilo.com
Ham-Directory: www.ham-directory.com

On 10/1/07, Mike Fatchett W0MU <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > When will the day come when the information in QST is more than a
> > fluff review, and a free multi-page advertisement for the manufacturer?
>
> When the magazine publishing costs are not paid for by the advertisers?
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Julian, G4ILO. K2 #392 K3 #222 KX3 #110
* G4ILO's Shack - http://www.g4ilo.com
* KComm - http://www.g4ilo.com/kcomm.html
* KTune - http://www.g4ilo.com/ktune.html

Stewart Baker

Re: Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology (LONG!)

It will be interesting to see if the K3 gets a full spec review in RadCom.
Probably not as there is no advertising money from Disti's involved.

73
Stewart G3RXQ

On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 09:12:50 +0100, Julian G4ILO wrote:
> That is exactly right. And it is not a fault only of ARRL. You never
> read a harsh review in RSGB RadCom or Practical Wireless over here
> either. PW reviews are a total waste of time as they are completely
> subjective.

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Julian, G4ILO

Re: Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology (LONG!)

RSGB, unlike ARRL, does not buy products for review. Review products
are loaned free of charge by dealers or manufacturers (this practise
in common with all UK magazines I am aware of - and I worked for
several years as an editor and then freelance reviewer for computer
publications.)

I think the only reviews of Elecraft products that have appeared to
date have been written by people known to the RSGB committee who
bought them for their own use. (I wrote and submitted a review of the
T1 ATU a few years ago but despite a favourable initial reaction from
the then editor it was never published.)

If Elecraft wants a RadCom review of a K3 someone needs to arrange for
Peter Hart to receive the loan of one.

--
Julian, G4ILO K2 s/n: 392 K3 s/n: ???
G4ILO's Shack: www.g4ilo.com
Ham-Directory: www.ham-directory.com

On 10/1/07, Stewart Baker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It will be interesting to see if the K3 gets a full spec review in RadCom.
> Probably not as there is no advertising money from Disti's involved.
>
> 73
> Stewart G3RXQ
>
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 09:12:50 +0100, Julian G4ILO wrote:
> > That is exactly right. And it is not a fault only of ARRL. You never
> > read a harsh review in RSGB RadCom or Practical Wireless over here
> > either. PW reviews are a total waste of time as they are completely
> > subjective.
>
>
>

Julian, G4ILO. K2 #392 K3 #222 KX3 #110
* G4ILO's Shack - http://www.g4ilo.com
* KComm - http://www.g4ilo.com/kcomm.html
* KTune - http://www.g4ilo.com/ktune.html

Stewart Baker

Re: Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology (LONG!)

When I spoke with Peter a year or so back about a possible K2 review he didn't
seem very interested. Who knows, the K3 may evoke a different response.

73
Stewart G3RXQ
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 11:55:43 +0100, Julian G4ILO wrote:

> RSGB, unlike ARRL, does not buy products for review. Review products
> are loaned free of charge by dealers or manufacturers (this practise
> in common with all UK magazines I am aware of - and I worked for
> several years as an editor and then freelance reviewer for computer
> publications.)
>
> I think the only reviews of Elecraft products that have appeared to
> date have been written by people known to the RSGB committee who
> bought them for their own use. (I wrote and submitted a review of the
> T1 ATU a few years ago but despite a favourable initial reaction from
> the then editor it was never published.)
>
> If Elecraft wants a RadCom review of a K3 someone needs to arrange for
> Peter Hart to receive the loan of one.
>
> --
> Julian, G4ILO K2 s/n: 392 K3 s/n: ???
> G4ILO's Shack: www.g4ilo.com
> Ham-Directory: www.ham-directory.com
>
>
> On 10/1/07, Stewart Baker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> It will be interesting to see if the K3 gets a full spec review in RadCom.
>> Probably not as there is no advertising money from Disti's involved.
>>
>> 73
>> Stewart G3RXQ
>>
>> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 09:12:50 +0100, Julian G4ILO wrote:
>>> That is exactly right. And it is not a fault only of ARRL. You never
>>> read a harsh review in RSGB RadCom or Practical Wireless over here
>>> either. PW reviews are a total waste of time as they are completely
>>> subjective.
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Simon (HB9DRV)

Re: Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology (LONG!)

I expect he will be interested - with any luck he'll be at the RSGB HF
convention, I'll ask him about this.

Shirley someone can arrange for him to get his hands on a K3.

Simon Brown, HB9DRV

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stewart Baker" <[hidden email]>

When I spoke with Peter a year or so back about a possible K2 review he
didn't
seem very interested. Who knows, the K3 may evoke a different response.

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Simon (HB9DRV)

Re: Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology (LONG!)

Pah! He will be there - he has a presentation on Saturday morning.

Simon Brown, HB9DRV

----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Brown (HB9DRV)" <[hidden email]>

>I expect he will be interested - with any luck he'll be at the RSGB HF
> convention, I'll ask him about this.

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Stewart Baker

Re: Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology (LONG!)

In reply to this post by Simon (HB9DRV)

Good idea, I tried 2 years ago with the K2.

Stewart G3RXQ

Carefully steering clear of "Airplane" trap.

On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 13:59:01 +0200, Simon Brown (HB9DRV) wrote:

> I expect he will be interested - with any luck he'll be at the RSGB HF
> convention, I'll ask him about this.
>
> Shirley someone can arrange for him to get his hands on a K3.
>
> Simon Brown, HB9DRV
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stewart Baker" <[hidden email]>
>
> When I spoke with Peter a year or so back about a possible K2 review he
> didn't
> seem very interested. Who knows, the K3 may evoke a different response.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

n8ewy

RE: Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology (LONG!)

In reply to this post by Simon (HB9DRV)

Don't call me Shirley!!!!

Dohn N8EWY

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Simon Brown (HB9DRV)
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 7:59 AM
To: elecraft
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology (LONG!)

I expect he will be interested - with any luck he'll be at the RSGB HF
convention, I'll ask him about this.

Shirley someone can arrange for him to get his hands on a K3.

Simon Brown, HB9DRV

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stewart Baker" <[hidden email]>

When I spoke with Peter a year or so back about a possible K2 review he
didn't
seem very interested. Who knows, the K3 may evoke a different response.

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com