Back over on that other site (you know, the one that claims to be the 'authoratative radio reference') they're preparing to release several new radio reviews.
I hope they do a better job on the individual reviews than on the transmitter shootout they did. Don't get me wrong, overall the effort was impressive, but there were several errors and shortcuts taken that reduced the rigour of that particular exercise.
Such as, not understanding how to appropriately tune the AMT5000, and blaming the documentation, rather than actually getting the information. It is valid to criticize the documentation if it is found lacking - it is NOT valid to just go ahead with testing without having all the facts at hand.
Such as repeatibility, particularly with a kit transmitter such as the AMT5000 - the results are highly dependent on the quality of the build. [In a recent post 'over there', a highly praised reference was made to a blog site that reviewed shortwave radios. One of the major factors in that particular review was repeatibility, but I guess they didn't see the relevance to their own reviews.]
It has become apparent after much discussion on the results of that shootout challenge that the relatively poor grounding played a significant role in the performance of the AMT5000 - it was affected more than the other transmitters (which does appear to match up with theory). That's a valid result. What is NOT valid is to continue to test the AMT5000 in an individual review with a poor ground - a better ground needs to be used to see if that particular transmitter lives up to the promise of its efficiency. And then ideally (perhaps in Shootout V2), matched up against those other transmitters with all using that better ground.
I guess we'll have to wait and see.