Ian and All,
While I agree with much of what you say, and I sympathize with the various
issues, I can't quite agree that it necessarily is a "good reason" for
everything.
First of all, U.K. stations had the same access to K3's as U.S. stations
did. Indeed, many U.K. bound units were included in the early shipments.
But Elecraft's production delays does make it extremely complex to get a
unit on any kind of a predictable timeline. If Radcom intended to review
the K3 (and I would assume they should have been interested from day 1),
they should have probably been quicker off the mark to get a unit in the
"Que", unless they were willing to delay review until they had proper time
to do it right. I'm not saying Peter did it wrong--indeed his review may be
quite accurate based on the radio he had--but saying he didn't have enough
time suggests a hurried review.
It seems to me that any committment to make such a review should be
predicated on having sufficient time to do it properly. If Radcom wants it
done earlier, they should insure access to a unit on a timely basis. The
timing should not be the sole responsibility of the author.
I also don't understand why any review (QST, Radcom, or otherwise) would be
done without allowing sufficient time for communication with the
manufacturer in case problems arise. Now, if the manufacturer doesn't
cooperate, so be it. But I assume Elecraft, or any manufacturer, would want
to be consulted about any claimed specifications not achieved. The need to
work with the manufuacturer should be disclosed, as it says something about
the status of "production units", but the long term benefit of the review
really depends on disclosing whether or not claimed specifications are
achievable, and what it took to get there. After all, the problem could
possibly be on either end.
In short, I think any review that is "rushed" due to time constraints is of
limited value. I'm not being naive' about deadlines, but deadlines must be
imposed reasonably. I also think that a review should be something that is
updatable. If issues occur, which are subsequently resolved, I think it's
good practice to disclose them on a timely basis in a subsequent issue,
including how it was achieved. Buyers rely heavily on such reviews, and I
would think it is in everyone's interest to do them as completely as
possible. And they shouldn't "pull any punches" either. I hate it when
reviewers seem to "gloss" around certain issues. If it doesn't perform as
advertised, say so!!!
Dave W7AQK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian White GM3SEK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] RSGB RadCom K3 review posted on RSGB Members web
page
Like the ARRL review, this one was very much a first shot - and as we all
well know, the K3 is a moving target.
A few words about Radcom reviews may help put this into perspective.
Availability of new models is typically several months behind the USA, and
quite frequently the QST review is already in print before a reviewer in
Europe can even lay hands on the hardware. This puts reviewers under
intense time pressure.
On receiving the equipment, the reviewer has a very short time to make
some basic functional checks, just to confirm that the equipment is fit to
be reviewed. More than once, I have rejected equipment at this point, and
I'm sure Peter Hart has too. But once a reviewer commits himself to the
magazine's production schedule, the process cannot be stopped. If subtle
issues emerge from the detailed measurements, the reviewer will report
whatever he sees.
73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
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
