steverow
Well-Known Member
After reading yet another Handheld Radio test in one of the mags...I have come to the conclusion that these tests just aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
They seem to be tested by a group of people who just "try them out" and assess whether they sound and look good. This might make good magazine copy but it's hardly objective is it??
To properly test any radio equipment it should be done in lab conditions.
RF power measurements should be taken into a 50 Ohm dummy load, and the levels noted.
Receiver sensitivity tests should be made using a calibrated signal generator and results given using the SINAD technique ...any FM radio not achieving better than 0.5 microvolts for 10dB quieting isnt worth having...as the most powerful transmitter in the world wont make up for a poor receiver
There is never any mention in these tests of RX sensitivity, or Deviation (modulation level) or Spurious emission performance or any of the other half a dozen or so technical tests that go to make up a complete radio test.
The answer of course is that your average bod doesn't understand the technical specs..and this is true, but then an assessment should be made by a qualified radio engineer on which is the best performing radio from the tests results.
An explanation could be made of the different test results allowing peple to choose.
I actually feel that these tests may be doing some of the manufacturers /importers a disservice.
In the recent past there have been supposedly objective tests of Radar and Radar reflectors...but any radio engineer knows that to do this objectively and thoroughly it needs to be done on a proper antenna range with comparative field polar digrams. It shouldnt be done at sea because the conditions are never exactly repeatable for each test.
So come on editors..either get the job done properly and publish proper and complete technical results of your tests, or just show us the pictures and prices and say you pays your money and takes your choice etc.
The problem is that the articles often look as if they are authoratitive and informed tests..which in many cases they clearly are not, and therefore are quite misleading.
I assume that cost is the issue that prevents proper objective technical tests from being carried out.
Rant Over.
Steve.
They seem to be tested by a group of people who just "try them out" and assess whether they sound and look good. This might make good magazine copy but it's hardly objective is it??
To properly test any radio equipment it should be done in lab conditions.
RF power measurements should be taken into a 50 Ohm dummy load, and the levels noted.
Receiver sensitivity tests should be made using a calibrated signal generator and results given using the SINAD technique ...any FM radio not achieving better than 0.5 microvolts for 10dB quieting isnt worth having...as the most powerful transmitter in the world wont make up for a poor receiver
There is never any mention in these tests of RX sensitivity, or Deviation (modulation level) or Spurious emission performance or any of the other half a dozen or so technical tests that go to make up a complete radio test.
The answer of course is that your average bod doesn't understand the technical specs..and this is true, but then an assessment should be made by a qualified radio engineer on which is the best performing radio from the tests results.
An explanation could be made of the different test results allowing peple to choose.
I actually feel that these tests may be doing some of the manufacturers /importers a disservice.
In the recent past there have been supposedly objective tests of Radar and Radar reflectors...but any radio engineer knows that to do this objectively and thoroughly it needs to be done on a proper antenna range with comparative field polar digrams. It shouldnt be done at sea because the conditions are never exactly repeatable for each test.
So come on editors..either get the job done properly and publish proper and complete technical results of your tests, or just show us the pictures and prices and say you pays your money and takes your choice etc.
The problem is that the articles often look as if they are authoratitive and informed tests..which in many cases they clearly are not, and therefore are quite misleading.
I assume that cost is the issue that prevents proper objective technical tests from being carried out.
Rant Over.
Steve.
