Total posts : 45366
From my perspective, I take a look at the emotional responses from that ‘other site’ (imagine, anyone daring to question any part of the testing by broadcast engineers with over 757 or so years of experience, particularly by the know-nothing scum from this Forum!), and their actions (blocking IP’s from accessing the site) and that, more than anything else, makes me question their motives. If they really were attempting to be objective, then they would be far more open to questions and comments than they have been.
And yes, I realize that Consumer Reports, the ARRL and others only use one example during their testing. These examples are generally obtained directly from the manufacturer, and as such are pretty much guaranteed to operate at their best. But the problem with the AMT5000, as I’ve indicated previously, is that it’s a kit, not factory assembled, and so you really don’t know what you’re getting in a single example. And from what I recall of the shootout (remember, I now can’t access it to check due to their blocking IP’s), there were other transmitters from non manufacturer sources, such as the Rangemaster, which could also have skewed results, either negatively or positively.
Bottom line – I was surprised by the relatively low ranking of the AMT5000. It doesn’t make sense. I don’t dispute the measured data, but feel that there may be other factors at play (some of which I’ve elucidated previously) than just pure signal efficiency; more testing needs to be done before anything definitive should be published, stated, or even theorized. Particularly when there’s empirical evidence from actual Part 15 broadcasters that appears to contradict the shootout data.