IC-705: a strange review.

This month's Practical Wireless features a review of the Icom IC-705.  The reviewer - G3UGF, an active participant and QSL bureau manager within the RSGB - awards the new rig a staggering 4.9 out of 5.

Or does he?

What the review text actually says, in terms, is that the robustness of the design - a crucially important aspect of a rig supposedy aimed at the, erm, portable market - is 4.7 out of 5.  

The overall, all-things-considered review rating awarded by the author is 4.8 out of 5. 

It is only "features and benefits" , "ease of use", etc, that are awarded 4.9 out of 5.

So PW maganzine has hand-picked the highest rating and printed that in a big star rating graphic on the strap page. 

OK, you might say that 94% (4.7/5) is not meaningfully different from 98% (4.9/5).  But I am not impressed with this picking-and-choosing of figures in a review, especially from PW.  It undermines confindence in reviews, when magazines in general (and not necessarily PW itself) already have to struggle with the desired objectiveness of product reviews and the need not to produce too many negative comments, in case they affect advertising potential.  

Consider, for example, the following, quite astonishingly silly statement in the closing words of the IC-705 review:

"There's no pretence of being rugged, but I appreciate that's not its marketplace."

What?

This flies completely in the face of reason - and ICOM's advertising.  It's a small, portable transceiver that has been accompanied by a lot of 'outdoors scenes' advertising, including promotion of a (very expensive) backpack, designed specifically for the IC-705.  Very early pre-release advertising images prominently feature the words "Be Active", and a man (of course) in hiking gear.

If a timber log and the words "Be Active" make this rig's home anywhere but the outdoors, where would that be?  Image: ICOM.

If the IC-705 being used as a field-portable rig is "not its marketplace", pray tell, what is its marketplace?  

OK, QRP people may be interested for home use, and the HF/VHF/UHF coverage will attract some more.  The promise of an amplifier may sway others.

But I don't think that many would actively choose the IC-705 for anything other than portable use as its main role, perhaps with a bit of home use thrown in on occasion.

If you're going to take a piece of sophisticated electronics like the IC-705 out into the outdoors, it really had better be built for coping with dust, sand, moisture (if not heavy rain), and lots of being knocked around.  Especially at £1300.

So how does G3UGF conclude that this rig has little or no ruggedness for the outdoors, yet awards it a 94% rating for the same general aspect, despite saying explicitly that the main reason for knocking back the rating is the lack of a pop-up stand?  To me, at least, it's an irreconcilable mystery.

I already had the idea, from quite a few comments online about the lack of environmental protections, that the IC-705 was not a rig for me, or many other portable users.  Now I am certain of it.

It should also be highlighted that G3UGF awards his very high score for this rig without touching, so far as I can see, digital mode operation.  Given that digimodes make up the overwhelming bulk of activity on the ham bands now, this is a very peculiar and serious omission.  G3UGF is getting on in years, and, his QRZ.com entry says, spent his professional life in radio communications.  These things do, I'm afraid, lead you to become rather stuck in one's ways and not realise what 'youngsters' are up to these days.

If I had to buy a portable transceiver this morning, I would opt for the (same price) tried-and-tested KX-3, even though it, too, is said not to be very protected against the elements.  If it were available from a UK seller who could observe consumer protection laws if something went wrong, I would choose the (half the price) Lab 599 TX-500, which is built in the true spirit of Russian robustness and real outdoors conditions.