Hi Guys,
His story talks about 90 procent of the time about how nice and perfect the components are.
There are not many “techanical aspect” , and if there are..they are not based on anything.
Like the fact he mentions in several of his reviews the antennas are so quiete..I wonder what is so special is about a dipole that makes it so quiete. That makes one wonder what kind of experience he actually had with antennas .
Thinking about the dipole, I would have prefered that he would write something about the bottum leg of the dipole beeing close to the mast and how that would influence the pattern etc.
If we take a look at the vector story there is again the 90 procent attention for the mechanical aspect..and on the "real" on air test, he mentiones ...its better than anything else...oke, that’s not really helping either is it?
Try that in court. No Judge! I didn’t do it…although I do have a smoking gun in my hand.. yes.
It is simple; If one writes a review with facts wich are open for discussion or seem inaccurate, you need to provide some insight on why you think that way.
There where he does try to give some, for example at the V4K story. He fails to realize he pulls himself deeper into trouble.
If he truly understood antennas he wouldnt have mentioned a the 2 S-units increase (or higher) As we all know that would indicate 12 dB's to his "other" antenna, wich i believe was "all the metal in the air".
But back to his mechanical way of thinking... he keeps mentioning how briljant the mechanical side of sirio is. If we know one thing about sirio then it would be that the mechanical aspect just isnt that great. Good enough for sure, but by reading his article I get the impression there isn’t anything better.
Besides that, on what are his thoughts based? It seems he directly copied the text from sirio "high quality aluminum, nylon and plastic" oke...how does he know? Or is it a educated guess and does it look pritty?
Other things like the fact he immeditaly changed (V4K)the antenna where it came as "brand new" out of the box says enough for me.
The last review I scanned was the sirio 827. I just scanned it cause after the first two lines I was amazed again: Yet another antenna wich is “unbelievable good” etc etc. copy/past /same story etc etc.
And as he mentions him self (which was the best conclusion so far) :
The sirio 827 performance was equal to a vector 4000...but how was that possible if we just esthablished the vector was the best out there.
My apologize for having a bad day, as I re-read my reply it seems a bit a downer. Wasn’t intended that way: but just because one can write down whatever you want in a review..it would be appreciated if it is fair and well compared/ based on a technical facts.
And ill give him two things,
1 he is far better than me in writing a review as i have never done it.
2 The reviews do give insigth in what he thinks.
So who am i to complain.
Kind regards,
Henry
All about antennas
