- Posts
wish hobby broadcaster would do an in depth review of the amt5000. seems they had to shell out $$$ to do a review of the Wholehouse 2.0
wish hobby broadcaster would do an in depth review of the amt5000. seems they had to shell out $$$ to do a review of the Wholehouse 2.0
wish they would do the same with the amt 5000 and do a good review on it.
they did the amt 3000, THII, iAM, Rangemaster, and procaster be nice if they would do one for the amt5000.
Total posts : 45366i recommend bombarding hobbybroadcaster with emails asking for a review of the AMT5000. it might get him to shell out for one and do some testing on it.
Total posts : 45366It’s interesting that part15.us is the premier part 15 website, and yet another website is the one mentioned for reviews of products.
Are there no reviews here on part15.us?
Total posts : 45366most on part 15 us don’t have access to the test gear bill d has. he already has existing data from previous mentioned transmitters and is already in a position to do comparative tests, etc. if someone here has access to pro test gear, can write reviews, and acquire and test different tx’s then we should be doing reviews here.
Total posts : 45366Having the pro test gear for purposes of equipment review does indeed amount to a very professional way of reviewing part 15 equipment.
Now I’m joining kc8gpd in requesting the other place to do a review of the AMT5000! I would think they’d go all out to be the first to publish such a review, considering the fact that the AMT5000 is a landmark bit of equipment.
Here’s my amateur review of the AMT5000…
I love it. You should get one. Thanks for reading.
Total posts : 45366I believe Bill tried to get a unit sent to him for a review, but that did not go through. I had suggested that all the members there, and at the time including me, donate into a pool fund to get one so that Bill could put all that collected test gear to use and do real world field tests as he has done previously with other units.
Of course having one donated would be a very nice gesture and a good PR move…but that would be me and not someone else.
RFB
Total posts : 45366Since you are asking for a review, Rev, why not lend your assembled transmitter to Bill for a while?
Bill’s website is entirely self-funded, and his reviews are a service to the Part 15 community. It would not be reasonable to expect him to also pay for the transmitters he reviews. I would think that manufacturers would consider an independent and objective review by Bill to be good publicity, but Phil doesn’t seem to see it that way. Of course, however Phil decides to run his own business is entirely up to him.
If Rev. Robert, or some other owner of an AMT 5000, can make an make an arrangement with Bill about a loaner, it would certainly be a good thing.
Total posts : 45366i was considering to offer him. but i am no longer registered over there and my emails to him seem to go unanswered.
Total posts : 45366You can bet that members over there got dipped and wet over the ohh ahh gear em up for the big sale pitch too and in fact there ARE some members over there who DO have one and they could very well loan theirs to Bill to be tested too.
Why has that not happened then…or my suggestion for all of them to pitch in and get one? Why does Phil not loan a demo unit for testing? Why all this nonsense when the thing has been out now for months and no real world testing done to date? The AMT3K did not wait this long to be tested…why is the AMT5K unit being so elusive to a simple frigging test?!!!
Why hasn’t anyone who has one done some testing on their own as well? You don’t need pro test gear to do some comparison tests on an outdoor 3 meter setup or some fancy dancy custom cabinet or wait for the next coming.
We don’t need to know audio specs or THD specs or all that other stuff already laid out on the spec list of the thing. What needs to be reviewed is the claimed improved efficiency into the most common setup that is out there, which is the outdoor 3 meter antenna system, not a short piece of wire hung from the wall or roof. And it does not matter that the unit was intended for just a short piece of wire. What matters is what the majority of setups are using and that is indeed the outdoor 3 meter antenna setup.
Someday when all the dancing around the issue is done and the feet are tired of that old song and dance, someone will step up to the plate and do the tests and reveal the results…then we can all put this endless nonsense to bed and move forward with that thing.
Until then..its all the same song and dance.
Time to change the record.
RFB
Total posts : 45366I would purchase one and test it, comparing range and subjective audio quality with my Rangemaster – on the same antenna mount, with the same ground and antenna setup, if it was available as an assembled product. I understand the reasons why SSTran can’t or won’t do it – they would then be required to certify it for Part 15. Hopefully I can pick one up, perhaps slightly used.
Total posts : 45366My testing of the AMT5000 does not rise to the level of test being asked for here, because I do not have the ideal outdoor vertical with radials, but I still maintain that I was able to prove that the AMT5000 is far more effective than my AMT3000, both of which operate everyday with similar antenna (my Wintenna, a window frame + added wire top & bottom for 3-meter total length, providing both indoor & outdoor coverage from a safe indoor transmitter location) at 1550 and 1680.
I tested toward the west, and the AMT5000 went about twice as far as the AMT3000, but I discovered that the signal to the east is far more dramatic.
The AMT3000 has never made it up the hill on the east, but the AMT5000 gets up the hill and beyond. I hear traces of it even a mile away.
However, the tests with the proper kind of antenna are still needed to complete the comparisons being made.
This summer my vertical + radials will be ready, maybe the outdoor version of the AMT5000 will be available, and I’ll do another test.
But I will not have a Potomac Field Strength Meter.
Total posts : 45366There’s no doubt that the 5000 has greater range than the 3000. But then, the Rangemaster has far greater range than the AMT3000 as well in similar comparisons (I purchased a 3000 used on ebay, mounted it in a weatherproof box with a 3 meter antenna, identical to my Rangemaster setup).
The big question, at least for me, is – which has greater range (with a listenable signal), the Rangemaster or the 5000?
Total posts : 45366“This summer my vertical + radials will be ready, maybe the outdoor version of the AMT5000 will be available, and I’ll do another test.”
There’s an outdoor version? I figured you’d just mount it in a weatherproof box, like with the 3000.
Total posts : 45366YES, right now PhilB is working on a weather proof version of the AMT5000. I am sitting here with a pen and checkbook, ready to go.
Total posts : 45366I’m with Ken on this one..why all the waiting around for this “weather proof version” when all you need is a weather proof box. Are we talking about the transmitter needing to be field tested or some box pre drilled with holes to test?
Will there be a significant difference between the current TX you have now versus the TX in this “weather proof version”?
Inquery: Are you that anxious to whip out the pen and check book for nothing more than a weather proof box with pre drilled holes all because it’s called a “weather proof version” and the box itself is the only thing actually new? Has the designer, marketer, maker been emailing you privately too with describing this new “weather proof version’s” features and specs that can’t be publicly presented..is that’s what has the pen and check book at the ready?
It’s a common marketing tactic to give the same thing a different name and fool the consumer into whipping out the pen and check book or CC card and buy away all because of the new name, programing your head with the thought of something totally new when in fact it isn’t.
I hope it will be all worth it and then maybe…just maybe the weather proof box will convince current owners to do the only real thing that matters here…field testing the transmitter on a 3 meter antenna system.
I wonder why that has not been done yet? Hmmmm…answer eludes me at the moment.
I’m sure the box will play a huge role in the testing of the electronic unit itself…it has to feel at home I guess, it will churn out the high efficiency a little better, it will allow the TX to sit comfortably inside, with enough room to toss and turn at night in case of nightmares with all the big boogeyman skywave signals bombarding it’s little house custom built just for it which will make it all work to the high efficiency advantage and validate a real world field test.
(rolleyes here)
I’m sorry but I don’t get this train of thought or logic or why someone would even be waiting for, and still waiting, and still waiting, on something that will have no direct bearing on what will answer the ultimate question..will this thing work up to it’s claim on an “ultimate” antenna system and with the increase in output efficiency.
Yep..like a Black Friday parking lot full crowd waiting and waiting in the freezing cold for the doors to open so they can flood in and trample all over each other in the mad rush to cut that check!
Thrilling..isn’t it!
The box will tell us what we need to know I guess. Or maybe the box will think outside of itself and remind us all to do the same from time to time.
(rolleyes here again)
A question for current owners of this over-praised, over-rated transmitter….since when does some special version weather proof box need to be a “must have” in order to conduct a field test on a 3 meter antenna when a chair, or table, or temporary mount rig set up to conduct the testing of the TRANSMITTER will be sufficient???!!!
Must be that logical thinking I guess.
RFB
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
