Overall I am very pleased with the review that Peter produced. Having chided him somewhat over the lack of a K2 review, I and others pushed him quite hard towards producing one for the K3. Given that the K3 is quite a different beast to the Far East Black Boxes he normally reviews, the end result IMHO is quite good.
I don't know where, given the continual changes in the K3 development/manufacturing timeline would be a better place to conduct a review. I don't think the RadCom (RSGB) has had any interest either way in the K3 review, other than to provide an interesting read for the membership. As has been said before the RSGB does not purchase radios anonymously, the reviewer is normally loaned them by a dealer. The K3 review is very different in that this time the unit came from a user. Probably this approach is better at showing the rig, warts and all. 73 Stewart G3RXQ On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 05:49:29 -0700, David Yarnes wrote: > 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: <elecraft@mailman.qth.net> > 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: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net >> 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: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > 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: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
