It was stated before 9 month:
Ween Rob returns from his vacation, I will send him the unmodified FLEX-6300 he was testing. We will create a new software test release that has the optimized settings. He can upgrade/downgrade the software to compare before and after, which will demonstrate that the fix is purely in software. While I have not had time to test this exhaustively on the 6500/6700, a quick check leads me to believe that the optimized settings will improve IMD performance of all FLEX-6000 Series radios.
Today, 9 month later, nothing heppend, still 6700 on the 13th place,
and 6300 on the 21th place. Would a new testes ever come?
While I used to follow his reviews closely, lately I have become disillusioned with his methodology and perceived bias on testing. I am no expert on testing and I don't have the necessary equipment to corroborate his or arrl's or any other testing results. But I feel the comparisons are apples to oranges. The 7851 gets its Dynamic Range Narrow Spaced (dB) score of 105 with a 1.2 KHz Roofing Filter.
The 7300 gets an impressive 94 with IP+ ON and a more modest 81 with IP+ OFF and the footnote states: "NOTE: With IP+ OFF, intermodulation degrades gracefully. Recommend only using IP+ when absolutely necessary due to noise floor degradation."
That 81 will put it bellow all Flex radios (and many others) including the Flex 1500 (*88).
The recently tested Icom 7610, on december, before it was available to the general public (*in the US), makes me understand it was provided by Icom directly. The latest Flex radios tested are used models from unknown sources in unknown state/condition. The test of the IC-765 has this footnote: "Receiver was optimized by Malcom Technical Support for best dynamic range".
I feel that this disparity of testing conditions proves that it is impossible to test all radios in that same conditions and the results are very very subjective. Probably, the best statement from Mr. Sherwood is that any radio with a DRNS of 80dB or more is plenty adequate for most hams.
Perhaps once there was enough differential between offerings to consider the delta between various radios significant but in the current offerings non-tested criteria is as significant or more so than what is tested.
A lot of this testing is like trying to pick who is the best Basketball Center player just by measuring their heights. Yes the player has to be in a deployable height range to be a professional center, but their are more overriding characteristics that separate which is the best player.
We all can name at least one “High Sherwood Rated” transceiver that in actual usability doesn’t work well for us personally.
Truthfully that same unit may be a “dream machine “ in another ham’s hands.
I enjoy Sherwood’s work and very much understand its limitations and bias, but he doesn’t operate in my shack.
A lot of radios have come and gone in my shack. The FlexRadio Systems presence is the only brand that has kept earning itself a featured place in the K9ZW shacks.
Like Salvador, I do not always put stock in "lists" because the tests have to be confined in a way that maybe isn't real world for all entries to be fairly tested.
In my experience with my 6500 and a modest 80m loop only up about 35 feet I often hear stations during our roundtable QSOs and hear them very well that my neighbors (same city) with better antennas cannot hear.
I have a Yaesu FT-991 which is my little backup rig if the Flex fails and needs to be sent back. I have tuned to a signal on the flex, tuned the yaesu to the same signal and switched the A/B antenna switch between them. The Flex wins every single time.
Anyway I'd still like to see the list.
A man walks up, sees a drunk man looking at the ground, so he asks the drunk what is he doing? The drunk replies "looking for my car keys."
The man asks "where did you lose them?"
The drunk says "over there."
The man asks, "then why are you looking over here?"
The drunk responds "because the light is better over here."
As I understand Rob Sherwood tests radios provided to him provided he has the time and interest to test them - the real question here is for Rob Sherwood, and I don't think he monitors posts here.
This type of testing and reporting I would find far more interesting. I know QST tries to do some of this but I find the writers not very credible.
And yes, I understand that FRS can't give us a 'preview' of what to expect in the next version of the software until it's ready...
Assuming you mean better IMD then we have now? witch is very clean now. From looking at the 6600 on air, think the IMD is better then the 6500 and 6700. I have seen Dave on his doing better then 45db down.
Whats coming? Who knows?