[1000mp] Subjective RX performance and MkV 2kHz numbers

[Scott Manthe]

If you check the lab numbers of both the ARRL and Peter Hart, you'l find
that there is no discrepancy here. The Mark V has numbers consistant with
and in many cases better (2nd and third order intercepts come to mind) than
those of the MP, except for BDR, and some of this difference might be
attributable to the fact that the testing methodology was different
(cascaded filters on the MP vs. a single filter on the Mark V). This is why
people have to understand that the numbers are NOT absolute! The same radio
can even have different test numbers on different days. And, I believe that
the ARRL testing methods are significantly flawed in that they only test a
single radio, so you get results like those with the Mark V number vs. the
Field, which according to Yaesu have the SAME RX board, yet had
significantly different testing numbers.

The labs tests are not gospel, they are a guideline and sometimes not a very
good one.

73,
Scott, W9AL

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Barry N1EU" <n1eu@hotmail.com>
To: <1000mp@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 11:34 AM
Subject: [1000mp] Subjective RX performance and MkV 2kHz numbers


> W7HV related: "According to W8JI's measurements, the MkV is slightly
better
> than the MP at 2 and 10 kHz"
>
> I think Mike Tracey does a fine job, but I've never been a fan of that
> too-often-held-up ARRL test data table - I wish it would just go away.
> Based on my own experience in contest conditions, I've found several
> discrepancies between test data ranking and real world performance of
> contest rigs.  One of those discrepancies is that IMHO the MkV/Field
> receiver outperforms the MP.
>
> 73,
> Barry N1EU
>