[Elecraft] RSGB RadCom K3 review posted on RSGB Members web page

[Stewart Baker]

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" <gm3sek at ifwtech.co.uk>
> To: <elecraft at 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 at 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 at 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