|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
Strays
Survey Question
Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation
Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers
Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net
|
Quality Reviews
Chris (N9VKC)
on
March 27, 2004
View comments about this article!
Greetings all. First off I'd like to say that I really enjoy eHam and all the reviews, comments, and swap items available. I think it is a real benefit to the Ham community to be able to see another Ham's opinion on gear, and this is where my article was conceived.
After reading extensive reviews on HF rigs and VHF/UHF HTs there is one glaring annoyance. -- How many reviews there are from Hams who just received their new rig and then give it a 5 out of 5? I cannot fathom how anyone can make the decision to really review a piece of equipment with just one day or less than one day of use.
I would like to make the suggestion that we all refrain from reviewing equipment until we have had it for some period of time and have worked through each quirk that all pieces of equipment invariably have. Wait until you can post in the three months or beyond, and give us what you think of your rig after you have used it some. Perhaps the designers of this site could add some code to subtract the 0- 3 months review ratings from the total rating or some such.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by K6BBC on March 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes. And I would like to add that hand-helds are very silly pieces of equipment. I still don’t understand why so many are manufactured. I’m always a little queasy when I see a fellow ham chatting on one of those things.
K6BBC
|
| |
|
Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by NI0C on March 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chris,
While I agree that reviews based on some months or years of experience, I do think there is value in a review that describes the learning curve associated with a menu-driven transceiver, or the assembly of a new multi-band vertical antenna. Some reviewers also give a rationale for why they chose the item they are reviewing. Reviewers also sometimes come back some months or years later and report on reliability issues.
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by WB0MMV on March 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes. And I would like to add that K6BBC is a very silly pieces of equipment. I’m always a little queasy when I see him chatting.
|
| |
|
Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by ZL2UFI on March 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have no issues with the length of time over a person has owned a piece of equipment or not.
The comments from ALL reviews on a piece of equipment are read and evaluated - I merely discard the
silly ones, or read them all to make up my own mind. The classic ones to read through are the
reviews like that of EchoLink - you are supposed to review the mode as stated in the header. But no everyone
seems to bag the software over this and that - so most comments are of little over all value.
I think that eHam provides a good service and each person can make what they want of the
individual reviewers opinion.
Anyway, good DX'ing.
|
| |
|
RE: Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by KE4RWS on March 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
H/T's are silly pieces of equipment? I must have missed something here . . .
As far as providing better reviews, I'm all for that. I too believe that a person should own and fully use their gear in all aspects before posting a review of it. Typically, I would post an initial review after owning a radio for a month or so just to provide my first impressions after a short use. I would then provide a follow-up review after about 6 months of continuous use to report back on the radio's performance, as this time-frame gives me an idea of how well the radio really stands up.
I no longer provide detailed reviews to this website due to recent policy changes, but if contacted directly I provide many reviews for the asking, which are highly detailed and cover all aspects of specific models.
|
| |
|
RE: Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by N6AJR on March 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I ocasionally do a review, but I try to compare it to other "common" ham equipment, such as a kenwood 820s to a ft 101zd sort of thing. Most of my comments have been on services like W4mpy qsl cards or G4FON's cw program.
And HT's are actually quite an interesting little piece of gear. I have gone from single channel hand helds to a 6 channel crystal controlled handheld the weighed several pounds to building a heathkit 2 meter HT, to owning several of each of the different manufactures radios like htx 202 and 404, som alinco mini hts, icom iic 2at and 4ug ( I think), kenwoods, and lots more, now I am down to a couple of icoms and a couple of vx5r's.
I am so glad K6BBC is so knowledgable as to let me know I was wasting my time with all those Silly HT's.., NOT..
we all have opinions, but some should not be shared with others..
73 tom N6AJR ( a silly ham, .. I suppose the fan dipoles are absoulty rediculous)
|
| |
|
Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by K9KJM on March 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree that it would be nice to give the reviews of
those who have only owned a piece of equipment a very
short time less value than those who have been able to
really run it through it's paces.
But what is even worse are those who get a new rig,
Have its finals go up in smoke, (Or worse) and still
give the rig a "5".........
|
| |
|
Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by M3SKF on March 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I like to read the reviews then make my own mind up,i do agree that some reviews are made in haste.Hands up i,ve done this my-self but have given what i think is a true account of the radio at the said time.
|
| |
|
RE: Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by W8JI on March 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Every radio is a four or five, no matter how bad it is.
Doesn't matter if it has spurious signals, clicks, splatter, is hard to use,and even if the owner returned it for a refund.
IMO, E-ham reviews are largely useless. Even the ARRL buries important facts in all the pages of fluff, but at least they are there for the reader to dig out.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on March 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm convinced that a longer trial perriod will work for me. After using my Alinco DR-605TQ two weeks I gave it a 4 with a "good for it's price" type review. Seven months later I sold the radio as "junk".
>>Yes. And I would like to add that hand-helds are very silly pieces of equipment<<
I disagree with that. Portable and self-reliant power supply in emergencies silly? Making a contact from Florida to Texas with 5 watts silly?
To each their own.
I give K6BBC's opinion a 0 out of 5.
73
Dave, KG4YJR
|
| |
|
RE: Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by K0BG on March 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There are many facits to this arguement. While Tom is correct about the tecnical stuff especially with respect to the ARRL and its reviews, the guy who just bought the rig may have some insight if he's honest. For example...
If I were to have given a review the same day I got my IC706, it wouldn't have been very complementary. It sports a mishmash of confusing menus which could have been thought out more intelligently.
If I gave a review after I owned the radio for 6 months, my comments would have been more realistic. While the menus are still mishmash, I had learned to use them irrespective of their layout.
In the end, however, I think the reviews are mediocre at best.
Alan, KØBG
|
| |
|
Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by ASTROHAM on March 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The criteria of waiting a prescribed number of months is not applicable to all reviewers. For the vast majority of cases, ham gear works perfectly out of the box and for ever after that until something actually goes south due to wear and tear. "Less than 3-month" reviews are useful and statistically significant in my opinion because the unsatisfied buyers tend to immediately report their woes (it's human nature). The number (or existence) of "bad" reports are a good indication of whether the manufacturer's quality control is effective or not. By the same token, I tend to ignore and skim over the "good" reports unless I'm curious about how the rig was used by different users.
Furthermore, buying a rig and immediately launching it into a major contest weekend is a good enough test period for my taste. The read on a rig after that baptism of fire is much more valuable than someone who tools with the rig for a hour every second week for a year.
|
| |
|
RE: Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by K8LEA on March 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Personally, I like both "first impression" and "long-term" reviews.
If the board software permits, though, I think the former probably should not be included in averages.
IMHO, the "out of the box" experience is quite important, whether it's an antenna (assembly and documentation issues) or a radio ("how do you make this thing transmit?"). I like to know if the finals poof the first day, too.... Obviously some of these are going to be flames - but some may be useful.
(I once bought a new car where the headlight knob came off in my hand in the first hour, and the seat recliner clutch failed when a co-worker decided to try the feature about an hour later. Turned out that there were three ways to install that clutch - the thing that held the seatback in position - and two of them were wrong. That car was an unending series of disasters after that.)
Follow-ups are valuable too - even if the documentation turned out to have been translated into English from some work by a guy for whom Burmese was a second language, at some point we either figure out how to work the thing or toss it through the back window. (Note to self: "Plexiglass next time....") Some of us are in the "call the neighbor kid to program the VCR" mode, and just aren't going to get it; other radios just need to be set up and as long as nothing breaks, they're fine. (My FT-1500M flakes once in a while. Rotsa ruck if I'm out on the road someplace, but fairly trivial to plug the notebook into the thing and put everything back. Programming the thing from the front panel is a little iffy for me.)
I would like to also see "comments" as an option, rather than running through the full review. I may not own the unit, but have a question or comment, and don't want to upset the averages. Sometimes "mine didn't do that" is sufficient, too....
I find these reviews quite useful when "averaged" by my own experience. I'm not buying a lot of stuff (my wife found out what this stuff costs), but you never know....
Sometimes it's anybody's guess when a particular issue will come up. I brought home a nice Zenith TV a while back who's "mute" function requires two separate presses of the button. The first tap drops the volume about half. I guess somebody wanted the feature, but I'd have passed on that model if I'd known. Or the VCR who's VCR+ programming is straight out of the Book of Revelations.... Or, the aforementioned FT-1500M's "Skip" function.... "Skip" is simple, but there's an "Only" setting too. If you want to set up a small scan group (for example, when the family's in the car and you just want to scan a local repeater or two, and maybe the local PD and FD), you can tell the radio to put these in an "Only" group. They'll scan normally if you're just scanning everything that's not locked out, but when you invoke the magic function, the radio will just scan those. How do you do that? Start the scan on one of the "Only" channels and it's _supposed_ to go into that mode. _Supposed to_.... About every tenth try for me. Definitely minor, but.... (Would have been nice to know that the receiver didn't support DCS, and that the lockup time when scanning PL'd channels is kind of long, too....)
Whether I'd have found that information on a new user's comments or later on, I don't know - I'd like the option to see both....
Truth of the matter is that a new user may find some really off-the-wall stuff based on not having the slightest idea of what they're doing (make sure you take the styrofoam cup out of the cupholder on your PC before booting), and the old timer may pick up on some important but buried feature (or lack) that some users might find fatal. ("The SWR protection circuit requires a tuner if you plan on transmitting....")
Sorry to ramble on.... And thanks to all the folks who _do_ place reviews here!
Stu K8LEA
|
| |
|
Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by W4KPA on March 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't think the policy ought to change. Most 0 to 3 month reviews are worthless, but not all. A radio that has serious problems right out of the box isn't going to get better in six months. I'm not talking about operator error, but stuff with serious design flaws. A lot of people have probably been spared by the early reviews of a new model that was a turkey.
I can sort through the breathless accounts written by uncritical new owners. I want to know if there's another FT-7100 lurking out there.
|
| |
|
RE: Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by X-WB1AUW on March 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Don’t think I’ve seen any reviews on eHam that had “statistically significant” information (or a confidence interval).
Come to think of it, don't think I've ever seen an ARRL review that indicated sampling error for measurements.
Bob
|
| |
|
Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by K3NG on March 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I like it when someone posts one of those "I just bought it and it's a 5/5 !" reviews, and then does a follow-up review six months later and says "it's still working great ! 5/5 !"
Even worse is the "I'm going to buy this unit next week, and it's great!" review.
You have to take these reviews with a grain of salt. As others have said before, scan the reviews and find the negative comments. If several people are saying the same negative thing, it's probably an issue. If there's a lot of reviews and they are all positive, it's probably a decent item. Ignore the reviews like the ones above or ones from people that have an obvious vested interest in the product or company. Throw out reviews that are written by nutcases.
|
| |
|
RE: Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on March 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Reviews are just that, "Reviews." They are intended as a users "impression" or "opinions" of radio equipment.
The problem with reviews is that there is no set of predetermined criteria to follow when reviews are written. There are no set of predetermined laboratory tests, no evaluation outlines, no documenting procedures, no testing specifications etc.
A review of this nature would exist only if they conducted radio reviews similar to how "Motor Trends" writes reviews for cars.
A 1-10 rating system would be a similar problem. What one person considers 8 would be interpreted by another as a 5 etc. We may still have the same review problem occuring, except now it will be in the form of numbers.
Reviews are generally an individuals opinion. Perhaps if they called it "Radio Opinions" it would suit the intended purpose.
Fan Dipoles? - I'll give Tom a 10 !
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by K8WV on March 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I like the reviews, but the rating numbers don't really mean much with the present system.
Ideally a reviewer could revise/update a review, and change the rating as appropriate.
Reviews would be given the consideration they deserve based on the comments and the time used.
|
| |
|
Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by K3YD on March 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
With respect to most gear, I do agree that several months of ownership/operation is a good basis for analyis. I typically wait at least 6 months before I sumbmit a review on a complex piece. Since I'm usually not an "early adopter" I don't think the delay is a problem for the reades of e-Ham.
I do enjoy reading the early reviews from those folks who have one of the latest & greatest. I read the early Orion reviews and am looking forward to early IC-7800 reviews.
Some things, QSL printers for example, can be evaluated very quickly. Fifteen minutes after you open the box, you'll have a firm final opinion.
|
| |
|
RE: Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by KD5JFT on March 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I use the reviews before I consider buying anything (both here and where ever else I can find them). I give much more weight to the negative ones than the positive. I am mainly looking for the problems people are having. I like the "first impressions" type and the more in depth "I have had this for a while" ones. Both are important and both have their pros and cons. I have submitted several reviews, some of both types.
Please keep up the good work. Don't let someone who doesn't like your opinion discourage you.
KD5JFT
|
| |
|
RE: Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by WIRELESS on March 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Most reviews are done by hams who don't any equipment to make reliable tests and they don't have a strong testing background anyway. So I don't think reviews are going to get generally any better. But users of an item can give some good information after an item is used for awhile. Quirks, unobvious shortcomings, subtle or unexpected design features can be reported by anyone using a radio for a few months. This kind of valuable information never makes it into the early technical reviews.
|
| |
|
RE: Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by K1CJS on March 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey K6BBC,
What do you use instead of a handheld? A 50 watt mobile on a belt clip? Do you have a storage battery on another? And a hardhat mounted 1/4 wave whip? How do you keep your pants up??? Even leather suspenders only support so much weight! ;-)
|
| |
|
RE: Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by DUALGATEMOSFET on March 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K1CJS asks K6BBC:
>>>What do you use instead of a handheld? A 50 watt mobile on a belt clip? Do you have a storage battery on another? And a hardhat mounted 1/4 wave whip? How do you keep your pants up??? Even leather suspenders only support so much weight!<<<
BBC uses 3 hydrogen-filled lead balloons to hold up his pants. I'd like to know which he has a stronger hatred for? CW or HT's?
73 from DUALGATEMOSFET
aka
"The Epitaxial One"
|
| |
|
RE: Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by KA5N on March 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The reviews that are helpful are those on older equipment that have not been reviewed or only reviewed one or two times. Some of the equipment out there still in use and traded at swapfests and on Ebay etc. is a generation or two older than many hams. A good idea would be to include information that the equipment is only useful for some modes.
Allen KA5N
|
| |
|
RE: Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by K6BBC on March 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Boy, Boys. Why the casting of witted barbs? And to correct, I like CW myself. I do however have a strong opinion that it should no longer be a requirement for a ham license. But let’s not beat that horse toninght. As for Hts – what the point. They are goofy. They are only practical for repeaters -- a place on ham radio where life no longer exist. I saw, dump CW and handhelds.
K6BBC
|
| |
|
RE: Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by K1CJS on March 29, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K6BBC,
OK, all kidding aside, handhelds are very useful to certain people. They are usually the beginners entry radio, in a city you only need 5 watts to talk to quite a few people, at a hamfest, fair, or other spread out gathering hams can use HTs to keep in touch, no repeater needed.
Newer handhelds can receive aircraft and other public service channels like the National Weather service, national park frequencies, and on and on. Sometimes a HT is the most practical radio to use.
Don't get rid of yours, if you do, one day you're gonna need it--but you won't have it! 73.
Also, please pardon departing the original subject, this needed answering.
|
| |
|
RE: Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by KD5JFT on March 29, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Off Topic:
I have three handhelds (yes 3, not counting my son's or my commercial ht's). They are the most used radios I have. I have two mobiles (one is my son's, but he isn't using it right now) and two base radios. HT's have a great usefulness and are what I reccommend to new hams. I have even loaned them out to new hams so they could see what they like and don't like. I am almost never without a ht.
Back On Topic:
I don't use the reviews for technical data, I use them for user impressions such as ease of use, design flaws, strange quirks, etc. I almost always just glance at the good reviews, but really pay attention to the bad ones. I have noticed that many problems people report with radios (myself included) stem from the loose nut holding the microphone, not the radio itself.
Please everyone, keep reviewing your equipment (old and new). First impressions count just as much as the reviews where someone has used the items for a long time.
Just my $0.02 worth.
KD5JFT
|
| |
|
RE: Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by W2IRT on March 29, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'd like to tie this thread into the earlier ones concerning subscriber-only access, or rather, what extra benefits to afford subscribers.
I would change the equipment review section to another type of software, such as that used by Slashdot and other sites, that allow posts to be moderated by other users.
For those who have never been to Slashdot, if I make a comment or answer an article or poll, etc, my comments are rated by moderators (active site participants occasionally get 5 moderator points to use over a few days). My post could then be moderated as Funny, Insightful, Interesting, Troll, Flamebait, Irrelevant, etc. Positive comments get one point added to the score of the article, negatives subtract. So three "interesting" points and one "off-topic" point would yield a total score of 2 for the post.
Readers, in turn, can say "I only want to see articles that have a score of +2 or above," which in turn cuts down on the amount of crap they are forced to wade through.
My proposal would be that should eHam switch to that model, non-subscribers would not be able to filter out irrelevant posts and would never be able to moderate (rate) other people's posts. Ditto for Anonymous Cowards. In other words, if you subscribe, you get to filter unwanted posts and periodically rate others' posts.
Here are some other ideas for implementing this concept: non-subscribers see what they see now--a rating and a rant. Subscribers would get a more detailed review - for example, there could be several categories of 1-5 ratings for each product. Things like ease of operation, comprehensiveness of manual, actual performance, satisfaction with the item, and maybe some others. Or perhaps, reviews visible to non-subscribers might be limited to one paragraph per review or x-number of words, etc.
In any event, though, I also concur that a great majority of equipment reviews are not all that well thought out and likely over-rate a product. When looking for something in the section, I usually head straight for an item that has a large number of reviews and has a total that's either all 5.0s or below 4.
Cheers,
Peter, W2IRT
|
| |
|
Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by DK1HTX on March 29, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What I'm missing in the reviews is that the reviewers point out what they did not like (some does).
There is no complex product in the world which has no negative sides.
But who has the honesty to say in an open forum: I have just blown x dollar (or euro) out of the window, when I bought this piece of equipment. Statements like this can lead one to doubt about ones ability to make good judgements.
Just my 2 bits.
|
| |
|
RE: Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on March 29, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
HF rigs are very silly pieces of equipment. They use too much electricity and are really overly complex for the use intended. In all honesty, we need channelized transceivers with minimal controls to take the guess work out of it and avoid the 1000 yard stares when the new batch newbies get on the air for the first time.
Let's eliminate the positions for CW, RTTY, FM, and SSB too....just leave the AM position there. Reduce power to 4 watts to reduce interference concerns as well.
Again, get rid of that NASTY VFO. Provide some new controls like PWR MIC GAIN, DELTA TUNE, and RADIO/PA. Any control that is infinitely variable, exclusive of volume and squelch, needs to go too.
HF rigs are so silly!!!
|
| |
|
RE: Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by K1CJS on March 29, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
While we're at it, how about fan dipoles, desk mikes, mobile rigs, etc., etc., etc.......
After all, we're all hams.....like to 'ham' it up.....Hey! You know what?.....Maybe we're ALL silly!
|
| |
|
Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on March 29, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chris, many excellent points.
One example I had was with the Yeasu FT-100D.
Out of the box it was a miracle rig. All bands and modes. A 500 Hz cw filter,audio DSP, and a TCXO to boot. All for $730!
It was not till after using the rig for a few months did I see the face plate comes of by accident.
The menu system makes would make a died in the wool contester go nuts!
I also compared the RX next to an old DRAKE TR-7. the TR-7 blew the FT-100D out of the water. I used both a service monitor and my trained ears.
Forget about all the DSP. My 1985 Harris 1446 on RX has specs that are now where near as good as the FT-100D. However my mil. spec Harris simply hears signals the FT-100D would needs MUCHO time in DSP tweaking to just get the same signal in!
Also the FT-100D receives all sorts signals that are a mix od multiple CPU, mixer and RF preamp products.
So out of the box I would have given the FT-100D a 5 for all the bang for the buck! DC-daylight. All modes.
Tiny size.
After 3 months of use, I would give it a 3.7 .
However the shear nifty factor of being able to go from 20M SSB to 440 FM in seconds is a big plus.
HOWEVER THE NIFT FACTOR SHOULD NOT COME INTO PLAY IN A REVIEW!
An interesting idea is to rate the reviewer.
How many reviews,quality of review, and was a service monitor used to vaidate specs.
However everybody should have a right to review rigs.
One just has to be selective as to the reviewers experience.
would not a peer review of product evaluations be nice, sure!
However we get into a hairy area. Should EHAM rate the reviewer. Should EHAM members rate reviewers?
Maybe if you have a rig with 50+ reviews, it does not matter. The average takes care of the different skilllevels of reviewers.
Any say on this matter?
73 MIKE
|
| |
|
Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by KD4LEI on March 29, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I see from a certain point what he is trying to say, but here we go with another "gripes and complaints" posting.
|
| |
|
RE: Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on March 29, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The reviews are mostly emotional anyway, and can be entertaining. Unless we go through a qualification process for authors, I think they'll never be much more than entertainment.
I love the "don't waste your money on this, like I did!" reviews, though. They're probably the most accurate ones of all.
I take these reviews the same way I take hams' comments made on the air about the way their stuff works. Everything works "great" until you have something else to compare it to. Then, a lot of what was great a moment earlier isn't so great any more.
My beams on my tower work "great," until I go operate from a big multiop contest station, after which time I go home and kick my tower 'cause nothing I have is that great.
It's all fun, and I doubt we can change it.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on March 29, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Steve is right. If you see a rig that many EHAM reviewers say......This rig is POS, that is the most accurate EHAM review you will get!(hi-hi).
The ARRL cannot flat out say any product is a POS.
The same product may have an ad in the same issue.
You do have to read in between the lines in an ARRL review. They cannot have that emotional impact an EHAM can have.
Yes, there have been cases of hidden agenda's
in EHAM reviews. Some HAM may have had a dog of a rig from lets say it was made by brand X.
The ham buys a rig from brand Y, he will bash brand X by comparing it with his new brand Y rig.
Yes, it is fun. However if you use a combo of what the ARRL lab says EHAM reviews, and most important listening on air for what on air users say......You can get a very good idea of what to buy.
The whole idea is never to rush or make an impulse buy.
73 MIKE
|
| |
|
RE: Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by WB4QNG on March 29, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I want a switch for "Rodger BEEP" on my radiiioooo.
Now back to the post. I like all the reviews the ones who just got their rigs as well as the ones who have had them for a long time. As long as we have a mix I think they are OK. You just have to way each review for what it is. If a rig has a 5 with no negative reviews I would be more incline to purchase that rig than one with a bunch of negative reviews. Of course all the reviews in the world doesn't really tell you what you will think of the rig. I have had some rigs that were suppose to be real bad and I like them while others I was told they were the greatest things that they ever owned and I wasn't impressed. Each his own. I just find these are helps.
Terry
WB4QNG
|
| |
|
RE: Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by EVILBLO on March 29, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You're all a bunch silly ass nerds in my opinion. Reviews. Opinions. Handhelds. Just like every other forum or BBS on the net. A valid topic degenerates into this mishmash. And ON TOPIC, i actually came here seeking help once about a product. I logged in, read the OPINIONS, errr REVIEWS, and posted with a valid question. Lo and Behold, my post was deleted by some pocket protector wearing pencil neck geek with a handheld stuck to the side of his face. Idiots.
Evil
I say give allllll the bandwidth back to the guvmint and do away with the lot of ya's.
|
| |
|
Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by KI4AFO on March 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chris,
I would agree that users shoudl wait to evaluate a piece of gear that seemingly works well. And the threee month period might well be an adequate time. There is one problem with removing the 0-3 month time line however and thaty is for gear that breaks. One of the benefits of a forum such as the Reviews section of eham is to find the bad as well as the good of radio gear. It might actually be more important to know what radios or gear breaks or is found to be defective within the first 3 months of use. Just a thought....I generally dislike sweeping movements
|
| |
|
Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by KA3POY on March 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think that eHam reviews can be a valuable, if not definitive, tool and am grateful the resource exists. I am not sure that the length of rig ownership would be the most important criteria to improving the value of posts.
One area where reviews could be greatly improved by a little self-discipline from posters involves wildly enthusiastic endorsements unsupported by any kind of empirical evidence - e.g. "my TS-120 has the best SSB audio of any rig ever made because all my friends tell me I have great audio".
If people would just confine their statements to what they actually know and the level of technical investigation that are equipped to perform, e.g. "of the three budget ham mobile rigs I have owned in thirty years, the TS-120 has the best audio according to my friends" we could all derive more benefit from the posts.
Very best regards,
N5IIT
was KA3POY
|
| |
|
Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by WB8CAC on March 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The "Automatic 5ing" of most radios drives me nuts. My current biggest gripe is the IC-718 that receives 5 after 5. It's not a terrible radio, but definately not a 5 to anyone who has used a really good radio. It has terrible selectivity unless you buy an overpriced filter, terrible audio on CW (not to mention the clattering relay on "QSK", and one of the worst AGCs ever. Yet it keeps getting fives. People keep buying them and they keep showing up as "like new" a short time later on ebay. It's a decent radio, with additional filtering, a great dollar value, but by no means a five..... just one example
|
| |
|
Quality Reviews
|
|
|
by WB5TCF on April 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think the reviews in EHam are useful as one of several tools in evaluating a piece of gear that I may not have actually played with in person. I take the "5 out of 5" ratings as only an indicator of perceived value. The ones I am more interested in are the bad ratings: I find some pretty good correlation between consistently low ratings and real problems in the field with the equipment. When they don't work out of the box, or don't work as advertised, that's a problem that I want to know about before I seriously consider a purchase.
I also use the ARRL lab tests more as a comparitive tool to aid an evaluation, and usually by comparing a new piece of gear to something with which I have first hand experience. I just want a reference point, and then know if it's better or worse in some quantifiable terms compared to what I know.
I don't think anyone would seriously think that a 5 rating on a new IC-718 means that the end user thinks that his $500-ish rig is comparable to a high end $2500-ish competition grade HF transceiver. Most reasonable folks would simply acknowledge that the IC-718 owner is happy with what he got for $500 and change, because it delivers a good value. The guy who just plunked out $2500 or more should be so happy!
Remember, guys: it's all about perceived value, and meeting expectations. Nobody said it was rocket science.
John
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Have Our Radio Manufacturers Sold Us Out?
ARRL Lab Making Big Improvements
Hamfest Quality and the Economy
W8ZR Reviews New Yaesu Mark V - FT-1000MP
Reading Between the Lines
Other Opinion Articles
How Social Networking Can Help Ham Radio
Don't Knock It!
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
EMP a Real Threat to Hams and the USA
High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
