[1000mp] ARRL data - 1 kHz IMD and BDR performance

[Piotr Gutkiewicz]

Hi all!

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ian White, G3SEK" <G3SEK@ifwtech.co.uk>

>
> Thanks for that very useful table, Bill, and for all the research behind
> it.
>

It must be lot of errors in ARRL test numbers, not only made during
measurements but also during edition of QST reviews and expanded test
reports. For example, compare  Mark-V (November 2000 QST) BDR numbers for 20
kHz spacing (preamplifier on, 3.5 MHz and 14 MHz) in both reports.

> Scott Manthe wrote:
> >If you consult the Peter Hart reviews from the RSGB,  you'll find the
> >original MP isn't really all that much better than the Mark V, except
> >for blocking dynamic range
>
> It's unfortunate that ARRL have used the results from the original MP
> review as the "gold standard" (their words) in reviews of subsequent
> models.

Notice the FT-1000MP receiver has been measured by ARRL with two cascaded
500Hz filters. Mark-V and Mark-V Field have been measured with only one 500
Hz filter. It can make some difference in measurements with close spacing
high level signals.


>closely ... but not in this case.
>
> ARRL and Peter Hart co-ordinate from time to time about test methods,
> and any major sources of difference (e.g. IF bandwidth) are understood.
> However, they don't co-ordinate about the results of individual reviews,
> mostly because new models tend to be released several months earlier in
> the USA than over here.
>
>

I treat ARRL, RSGB, W8JI and other measurement data as some general
information about rigs class. I would never dare to put  all these numbers
only in one table for comparison. I have tried, but after some reading I
have destroyed my table.

> -- 
> 73 from Ian G3SEK         'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
>                             Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book'

Best DX,

73! Peter, SP5CFD