I don't know what other stuff happened...
And I like all of you very much, I have to say.
I do think Bill and his group did a great job -
I wouldn't be able to do it. I'm sure it was a lot
of work and I think it was hard to start from scratch
and figure it all out.
So yup, I have to just echo what Neil said.
Bruce, DOGRADIO
In reference to the AMT5000 poor results in the challenge, I would like to point you to a couple post that Ermi Roos made yesterday at the radio discussions forom: http://www.radiodiscussions.com/showthread.php?659462-The-AM-Transmitter-Challenge-has-arrived
The essence of his post explains that the AMT5000 is unable to efficiently perform when tuned according to the manufacturer's instructions.
I've always got the impression that Ermi genuinely knows what he's talking about, and whats more I think I've read the same conclusion here as well.
So the question is; are the instructions provided with the AMT5000 wrong? or not?.. and should one rely on the instructions provided by a manfacturer, or should they research for a better possible method of operation?
That's odd because I was able to tune mine with ease .
And it out performs any other Transmitter I have ever owned .
But what do I know , after all I am just a dumb ass DJ.
Ermi is a well informed radio technician.
But what he's saying about the AMT5000 is false.
Like Lefty, AND with the aid of a spectrum analyzer, I have found the instructions for tuning the AMT5000 are exact and carefully engineered to get the job done.
All the negative comments that get spread around about the AMT5000 never seem to come from people who actually have an AMT5000.
Instead, it is people who base their story on "I think I read somewhere" or "So and so said, and since they seem believable, it must be true."
The same negative story carriers always seem to ignore the supportive comments made about the AMT5000 by me and others, who actually own the transmitter. Our stories don't get spread around.
There is a reason why hearsay is not admissable in courts.
Phil and Keith NEVER respond to emails. I have NEVER had a problem dealing with either one. I have found both to be responsive. You may quote me on this.
I've talked to both of them on the phone and via email. They might have waited a day or so to return my calls but they always called me..
I dont know about Phil, but Keith is generally very prompt in reponding.
Carl, My post was not a negative comment about the AMT5000. Almost everyone always expresses nothing but praise about the unit.. The point was that an opinion was made (by Ermi) in an effort to explain that the AMT5000 would had exhibited much higher performance readings had it been tuned correctly, and not in the way the documentation says to.
Then I asked if it was true (as Ermi states) the tuning methods in the manual are incorrect for class E devices...
You say you disagree.
I don't know one way or the other.. I was asking.
I wasn't insulting the quality of the unit. I was looking for evidence of the truth on why the AMT5000 had scored poorly in the challenge.
It's really time for Phil to chime in on this..
Why is it time for Phil to "chime in?"
Why isn't it time for Keith to chime in, or Chez, or the Grain transmitter?
Maybe it's time for disclosure that one of the test engineers is a Rangemaster and Chez Radio dealer.
I was refering to the subject at hand.. the AMT tuning instructions...
Carl, I'm not badmouthing the transmitter or anyone, nor do I have any doubts of it's high quality and performance. I believe it's a premium product. - I agree the test results do not coincide with countless reveiws and comments which always surround the AMT5000.. It doesn't add up, and there must be a reason it did not perfom well in this case... Everybody is seeing the ranking and wondering WTF?.. Therefore, it seems a good time for Phil to chime in..
Oh, but what do I know. Maybe it isn't a good time to chime in.
Even if you assume that the motives of the testers were pure, and that there were no conflicts of interest and the results were accurate (as far as they went)...
A sample size of 1 means that the experiment is interesting, but certainly not definitive.
That's why in science, you always use more than 1 set of data points to come to a conclusion (that allows you to at least calculate a mean or average) - you can't graph one data point.
Tipped off by Rich Powers that Ermi was saying things about this on a third forum-site, I scrolled around to read those remarks and see that he is saying something that I already said in an earlier post in this thread...
The several jumpers in the AMT5000 are an important part of setup and were not mentioned in the Report.
Ermi goes a step further by claiming that the jumper settings are not described in the manual and this is not true, as the section on jumper management spans across several pages. Perhaps he has seen an earlier version of the manual. Or never seen the manual, as I am informed that he does not have an AMT5000.
"the experiment is interesting, but certainly not definitive."
Exactly, and that is how everyone should be taking it. As for the controversy surrounding it, well, it needs to be addressed. But why has it become so intense with a tone bordering rage? It's no atmosphere to find explainations or answers in, and creates uncomfortable tenseness.
When the FCC Laboratory audits for compliance, they ask for a single sample that is represenative of current production. Also, the ARRL laboratory does the same for product evaluation. Just saying.