Re: Elad Duo Overload Performance Measurements
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
The author of the article was Rob. I have a 2020 email from Rob with the same Elad Duo report. I was comparing notes with Rob on a couple of questionable performance areas – I had much better test results of my Duo. Rob acknowledged that perhaps he had a defective Duo and would test again if he could get hold of a more recent unit.
I like the QST product reviews – lots of good measured technical specs, but I cannot totally depend upon those reviews to give the complete picture on the performance of a radio. Sometimes, the written review does not totally match with the measured specs. A typical example would be some of the noisy transmitters that have been reviewed. The specs plainly show the noise trash, but no mention is made of this noise trash in the write-up. A much older example is the SGC SG-2020 transceiver. The ones with the ADSP-II module always sounded terrible on SSB. I owned four of them at different times – I wanted to make sure that I did not have a bad unit. I went back and reviewed the QST product review. No mention was made of the terrible sounding audio, but the measured receiver audio response identified the problem. Today, when someone asks me about the SG-2020, I tell them it is a great radio but the audio on SSB sounds terrible and the alignment procedure is impossible unless you get the customized cal settings from SGC.
ARRL is in a difficult position. The organization exists because of advertising dollar revenue. If they upset the big manufacturers by writing critical reviews, then ARRL will soon be out of business. Some radio manufacturers never submitted their radios to QST for testing. Typical examples would be the Atlas 210 series and the Swan series. I can only guess that the QST testing process would turn up a number of serious issues. Conversely, I never saw any reviews for the Collin’s S line and the Drake TR series of transceiver. I think that it also should be noted that much of the current Product Review receiver testing process is a direct result of push-back from Rob and Adam Farson. It took them several years to convince the product testers to update their testing process to more accurately depict actual receiver performance.
So to balance the info in QST product reviews, I also have to read the write-up from Rob and Adam Farson. For Rob’s receiver result test site, one can easily rank the radios on other factors. I feel confident that his current ranking is accurate and Rob will tell you that any of the top ten radios would work good for just about anyone.
The Elad Duo is in a unique niche market – it does things that no other radio will do. I have an IC-7300 and I like the radio. Its overload performance is slightly better than the Elad Duo. I keep going back to the Elad Duo because of the finely detailed spectrum display with the SW2 software, the small size, the 0 dbm output signal generator, and the product support.
From: EladSDR@groups.io [mailto:EladSDR@groups.io] On Behalf Of Klaus Brosche
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: [EladSDR] Elad Duo Overload Performance Measurements
It was ME!
In Sherwoods 'official' list, which he calls 'Receiver Test Data', there is no entry about the DUO.
The data published re. the link you've provided are from 2015, as far as the date code is concerned,
This writing is not signed by Sherwood nor does any DUO performance entries show up at
For any performance ratings of the DUO, I'd rather rely on the QST reviews dated May 2016.
IMHO, QST reviews have a coherent testing methodology which is also published and explained.
However, sometimes you need to read 'between the lines' or definitely read their 'sidebars' ;-)
Am 17.10.2020 um 16:46 schrieb Clint Chron: