Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
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

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 11 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: MFJ - What more can be said...  (Read 83792 times)
W5JON
Member

Posts: 174




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: June 21, 2013, 07:36:39 PM »

Frank,

You can quote the  "fine addition" as many times as you want.  BUT once again you refuse to say that MFJ screwed up and just continue to make EXCUSES.  

Quoting the  "fine addition" does not excuse a DEFECTIVE Tuner being tested by the ARRL. was sent BACK to MFJ for repair, and returned to the ARRL with ANOTHER PROBLEM REMAINING.    

Quoting the  "fine addition" does not justify obviously, if they have QC (which is debateable) they missed TWICE.

Frank is it so hard to admit "they screwed up", without the excuses.  

So I'll just keep my Palstar AT-AUTO and my Elecraft KAT500, and yes I finally sold my second (spare) MFJ962 because I just could not trust it.

BTW, we get very few Hurricanes down on St Kitts. We get mostly Tropical Storms, as they do not usually form into Hurricanes until they get up into the North Atlantic. The Gulf coast get's far more hurricanes then St. Kitts, but thanks for the concern.


73,

John

John,

I've always said that if MFJ screws up (based on facts, not innuendo), they, like all companies, should be called on it. The ARRL review unit did have two consecutive problems on this particular unit. But why does the ARRL test lab NOT AGREE with your assessment and rated it a "fine addition" to any shack? I'm not making any excuses. Period. I'm just quoting QST. Ergo, what jumped out to two eHam posters did not jump out to Joe Hallas! Why is that?

Frank


Thus, he found that the rotor inductor on the test unit was not set properly. And, the turns counter was slipping. These were manufacturer problems in production. How many units had or have this problem?
Anyone notice the July 2013 QST review on the MFJ-9992 transmatch?  They had more than a few problems with shoddy quality.

Whoda thunk?  ;-)


Wow what a surprise, a MFJ product with a QC problemS.  Who would have ever thought that could possibly happen, right Frank?  Must be just an inexperienced Test Engineer at the ARRL.  Roll Eyes

73,

John  

Frank,

What jumps out during the review, the ARRL sent the Tuner that was being reviewed back for repair and it is returned with ANOTHER problem.  I would have thought it would have been COMPLETELY CHECKED OUT PRIOR to return. And please do not give me the it was rough shipping excuse.

Perhaps if MFJ had proper QC procedures, they would know how many, and when the "manufacturer problems in production" started.  The ARRL Testing should not be the one to find MFJ "manufacturer problems in production". How long would the problem have gone on had the ARRL not Tested this Model.

Frank, when MFJ screw's-up, they screw up, it happens to everyone. Face the facts, and stop always making excuses for them, they just screwed-up, and the ARRL caught them TWICE.

73,

John
« Last Edit: June 21, 2013, 07:46:19 PM by W5JON » Logged
KG6AF
Member

Posts: 367




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: June 21, 2013, 08:15:25 PM »

John,

I've always said that if MFJ screws up (based on facts, not innuendo), they, like all companies, should be called on it. The ARRL review unit did have two consecutive problems on this particular unit. But why does the ARRL test lab NOT AGREE with your assessment and rated it a "fine addition" to any shack? I'm not making any excuses. Period. I'm just quoting QST. Ergo, what jumped out to two eHam posters did not jump out to Joe Hallas! Why is that?

Frank


Maybe the eham posters suddenly realized that they were not subject to editorial control by an organization dependent on ad revenue from MFJ?

QST and their reviewers walk a very fine line in these matters.  On one hand, they don't want to paper over the problems they've experienced with a product, and that's to their credit.  But in their summary, they don't say that the tuner makes a fine addition to the shack once they returned it to MFJ for repair and then fiddled with it some more themselves, because they'd already made that point.  They count on you, the reader, to put two and two together.  Discretion is the better part of valor, and all that.

I took a quick look at eham reviews for the MFJ 9982.  Of the 9 reviews (but only 8 reviewers), at least three users mentioned problems with the roller inductor or gear mechanism.  These problems do not appear to be new ones.  By the way, one reviewer commented that it's a great tuner once you fix it up.  Well, that's nice, I guess.
Logged
K4FMH
Member

Posts: 259




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: June 21, 2013, 09:00:45 PM »

John,

I think I did acknowledge that MFJ made mistakes on the assembly of this tuner. It seems that the QST reviewer Joe Hallas did not think they were as major of a "screw up" as you or a couple of others do. Oh, that's right....KG6AF says that Joe Hallas' objectivity chain must have been yanked by Publisher Harold Kramer so MFJ won't pull their advertising! So readers are supposed to put 2&2 together and conclude that the "fine addition" summary is bogus.

This is cherry-picking at its finest. You can prefer Palstar over MFJ all you want .... Palstar is a good company from what I know ... But that's all it is: your preference.

No excuses are necessary for MFJ on my part. I've always said in this forum: if they screw up, call them on it. But deal with facts and be fair. You were not fair with the complete QST review but selected just some of the review (Joe did find fault with the Palstars on tuning but you didn't acknowledge that!). I own other equipment besides MFJ. I've just never, ever had a single production issue .... other than me not adequately studying the manual from time to time ... with MFJ products.

73,

Frank

Frank,

You can quote the  "fine addition" as many times as you want.  BUT once again you refuse to say that MFJ screwed up and just continue to make EXCUSES.  

Quoting the  "fine addition" does not excuse a DEFECTIVE Tuner being tested by the ARRL. was sent BACK to MFJ for repair, and returned to the ARRL with ANOTHER PROBLEM REMAINING.    

Quoting the  "fine addition" does not justify obviously, if they have QC (which is debateable) they missed TWICE.

Frank is it so hard to admit "they screwed up", without the excuses.  

So I'll just keep my Palstar AT-AUTO and my Elecraft KAT500, and yes I finally sold my second (spare) MFJ962 because I just could not trust it.

BTW, we get very few Hurricanes down on St Kitts. We get mostly Tropical Storms, as they do not usually form into Hurricanes until they get up into the North Atlantic. The Gulf coast get's far more hurricanes then St. Kitts, but thanks for the concern.


73,

John

John,

I've always said that if MFJ screws up (based on facts, not innuendo), they, like all companies, should be called on it. The ARRL review unit did have two consecutive problems on this particular unit. But why does the ARRL test lab NOT AGREE with your assessment and rated it a "fine addition" to any shack? I'm not making any excuses. Period. I'm just quoting QST. Ergo, what jumped out to two eHam posters did not jump out to Joe Hallas! Why is that?

Frank


Thus, he found that the rotor inductor on the test unit was not set properly. And, the turns counter was slipping. These were manufacturer problems in production. How many units had or have this problem?
Anyone notice the July 2013 QST review on the MFJ-9992 transmatch?  They had more than a few problems with shoddy quality.

Whoda thunk?  ;-)


Wow what a surprise, a MFJ product with a QC problemS.  Who would have ever thought that could possibly happen, right Frank?  Must be just an inexperienced Test Engineer at the ARRL.  Roll Eyes

73,

John  

Frank,

What jumps out during the review, the ARRL sent the Tuner that was being reviewed back for repair and it is returned with ANOTHER problem.  I would have thought it would have been COMPLETELY CHECKED OUT PRIOR to return. And please do not give me the it was rough shipping excuse.

Perhaps if MFJ had proper QC procedures, they would know how many, and when the "manufacturer problems in production" started.  The ARRL Testing should not be the one to find MFJ "manufacturer problems in production". How long would the problem have gone on had the ARRL not Tested this Model.

Frank, when MFJ screw's-up, they screw up, it happens to everyone. Face the facts, and stop always making excuses for them, they just screwed-up, and the ARRL caught them TWICE.

73,

John
Logged
W5JON
Member

Posts: 174




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: June 21, 2013, 09:19:32 PM »

Frank,


"cherry-picking at its finest"  =  "fine addition"


By and 73,

John
Logged
KG6AF
Member

Posts: 367




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: June 21, 2013, 10:23:31 PM »

Oh, that's right....KG6AF says that Joe Hallas' objectivity chain must have been yanked by Publisher Harold Kramer so MFJ won't pull their advertising!

No, I said that the QST staff has to be careful to both tell the truth and at the same time not needlessly offend advertisers.  I have absolutely no reason to believe that the publisher leaned on anyone, but I do think that reviewers understand the line they walk.

So readers are supposed to put 2&2 together and conclude that the "fine addition" summary is bogus.

Again, no.  The "fine addition" summary isn't bogus, nor did I say it was.  What I did say was that it came with a qualifier that appeared earlier in the article.  Ignore that qualifier, if you want, but that's pretty much an operational definition of cherry-picking.

Similarly, the most recent eham.net review of the 9982 has the phrases "this is the BEST" and "has better tuning than the others."  The reviewer seems completely sincere in these beliefs, and I have no reason to doubt him.  I suppose a reader could focus on only those phrases, but he'd overlook the fact that the reviewer had to redress all the wiring for proper clearance, readjust the inductor turns counter, fix the inductor comb so the wheel turns freely, and replace the balun with a better one.  Those things seem...important.
Logged
K4FMH
Member

Posts: 259




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: June 22, 2013, 04:16:46 PM »

Thanks John...but I'm not really sure that Joe Hallas cherry-picks! Good DX in the Bahamas....take some Texas salsa with you!

73,

Frank

Frank,


"cherry-picking at its finest"  =  "fine addition"


By and 73,

John
Logged
K4FMH
Member

Posts: 259




Ignore
« Reply #36 on: June 22, 2013, 04:32:02 PM »

KG6AF,

Thank you for clarifying what you meant....especially since you were reading the tea leaves in the QST review. I would agree that the editorial style is --- and should be, IMHO --- even-handed: objective to observed flaws but not pejorative in tone. IF eHam reviewers held the same standard, these reviews would be much more valuable.

Readers of the QST review should take note of the two production flaws that Joe Hallas noted in his review. But they should, by the same token, take note of the summary conclusion he came to as well! That was, and remains, my point. For those who flippantly say that MFJ product line has NO QC procedures, they are flat wrong. In fact, Tom W8JI designed and put them in place. If someone doesn't respect Tom's body of work, well heaven help them!

In closing, we simply do not know how often production errors occur. No ham manufacturers release return or QC test data. But the culture on eHam is such that if it's MFJ, then one means all do...and that's demonstrably bunk!

73,

Frank

Oh, that's right....KG6AF says that Joe Hallas' objectivity chain must have been yanked by Publisher Harold Kramer so MFJ won't pull their advertising!

No, I said that the QST staff has to be careful to both tell the truth and at the same time not needlessly offend advertisers.  I have absolutely no reason to believe that the publisher leaned on anyone, but I do think that reviewers understand the line they walk.

So readers are supposed to put 2&2 together and conclude that the "fine addition" summary is bogus.

Again, no.  The "fine addition" summary isn't bogus, nor did I say it was.  What I did say was that it came with a qualifier that appeared earlier in the article.  Ignore that qualifier, if you want, but that's pretty much an operational definition of cherry-picking.

Similarly, the most recent eham.net review of the 9982 has the phrases "this is the BEST" and "has better tuning than the others."  The reviewer seems completely sincere in these beliefs, and I have no reason to doubt him.  I suppose a reader could focus on only those phrases, but he'd overlook the fact that the reviewer had to redress all the wiring for proper clearance, readjust the inductor turns counter, fix the inductor comb so the wheel turns freely, and replace the balun with a better one.  Those things seem...important.
Logged
N7RST
Member

Posts: 470




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: June 24, 2013, 05:38:18 AM »

When I purchase something from a manufacturer, regardless if it is from MFJ who bought out someone else's product line, the last thing I want to do is fabricate, purchase, locate, repair missing or poor built equipment.  if I do that, then I feel MFJ should pay me for my time, effort and materials to correct their junk. In this case, the antenna doesn't work properly and it needs a new trap.  The one that came with it is defective but they won't send an entire antenna let alone the part.  I have asked a basically simple question:  Tell me the part I need, Part Number and Price.  That simple.

I will "order the part" and hopefully, they have no involvement in making it, else I will be back where I am now...

If a person tinkers with an item and then expects a company to take it back, I understand the issue there.  This isn't the case.
Logged
2E0EAO
Member

Posts: 4




Ignore
« Reply #38 on: June 25, 2013, 06:15:14 AM »

perhaps people are missing what MFJ stands for? Made From Junk.

I have three MFJ items, an antenna tuner that works well, a MFJ 259B antenna analyzer that needed replacement parts after its first use, because the battery box battery contacts melted through the plastic battery box, and an MFJ 1868 discone that is faulty.
1 out of 3 is very poor and therefoer MFJ will not get another penny from me.
Logged
W1JKA
Member

Posts: 1816




Ignore
« Reply #39 on: June 25, 2013, 06:58:17 AM »

Re:2E0EAO

Obviously yours is the correct definition of MFJ,but we here on this side of the pond not being to familiar with the OED or Queen's English define it at as Mississippi's Finest Junk.
Logged
2E0EAO
Member

Posts: 4




Ignore
« Reply #40 on: June 25, 2013, 01:54:40 PM »

perhaps people are missing what MFJ stands for? Made From Junk.

I have three MFJ items, an antenna tuner that works well, a MFJ 259B antenna analyzer that needed replacement parts after its first use, because the battery box battery contacts melted through the plastic battery box, and an MFJ 1868 discone that is faulty.
1 out of 3 is very poor and therefoer MFJ will not get another penny from me.



Damn, a few hours after posting this MFJ came to the rescue with regards to the discone, offering to replace the faulty part and deal with the antenna's warranty, when the UK conman I purchased it from will not. MFJ scores 1 radioworld dot co dot uk scores 0. MFJ is more likely now to get my next penny where as radioworld are getting litigation.
Logged
KG9H
Member

Posts: 16


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #41 on: June 29, 2013, 05:13:20 AM »

I too have many many MFJ devices here.  Either they hit it out of the ballpark with a good product... or not.  The MFJ422, 90xx series of QRP radios, 925 auto-tuner are all great.  I had 3, 994 BRTs and all had issues.  In all fairness they sent me a new in box one in the end, it is in my garage - unopened.   Would I buy from then again, yes, but only after reading a few reviews.   Frank KG9H
Logged
W4VR
Member

Posts: 1198


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #42 on: June 29, 2013, 06:11:55 PM »

EVERYTHING I ever bought from them over the years **always** didn't work, needed repair, rework, further alignment & testing.
Stupid question...

Why did you keep buying from them over the years?

Personally, my 949 tuner is over 20 years old and other than tightening the set screws on the knobs every now and then, it has been working flawlessly.

That's what QC is all about.  Some of the stuff you buy from them will work flawlessly, and others will buy the same stuff and have terrible luck with it.
Logged
N7RST
Member

Posts: 470




Ignore
« Reply #43 on: July 02, 2013, 04:13:27 PM »

I sent them a request for a schematic for a voice keyer that I have from them, it is a Rev 1 dated 1994.  Of course I got the uh, lemmie see, uh...and then, "email Jimmie".  Well, I called and emailed and their recommendation, "look on the internet".  Wow.  Why didn't I think of that!

Well, you guessed it.  I have no schematic, don't know if this is the way this thing is suppose to operate, etc.  No help.  Zero.  Product knowledge.  Zero.
Logged
AC4RD
Member

Posts: 1235




Ignore
« Reply #44 on: July 03, 2013, 04:21:56 AM »

I sent them a request for a schematic for a voice keyer that I have from them, it is a Rev 1 dated 1994.  Of course I got the uh, lemmie see, uh...and then, "email Jimmie".  Well, I called and emailed and their recommendation, "look on the internet". 

Wow.  They don't have a schematic handy for a product that's almost 20 years old?  Shame on them! 

There IS a schematic and a very complete manual online for their current voice keyer.

I'm gonna check now and see if I can still get a product manual and schematic for my MFJ spark-gap transmitter.   Wink
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 11 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!