You all may be right, and the 7300's on-air real-world performance may be dozens of dB worse than the lab results suggest it should be. However, if that is true, then lab testing is basically worthless, because it would mean that lab testing has no correlation with real-world performance. That's back to what I said earlier -- finding a radio whose performance in situ is terrible, but on the bench is fantastic, would mean that lab testing needs desperately to be changed. Otherwise, what good are lab tests, at all? The 7300 has some other weaknesses that certainly don't help its cause. E.g., it doesn't have a dedicated connector for a receive antenna. That suggests that most people are going to run their transmit antenna as the receive antenna, too. And I dare say most people don't know how to use a transmit antenna as a receive antenna. They turn the PRE on, the ATT off, and the RF gain to the right, until the S-meter is practically bleeding from all the noise. Then they complain about poor SNR, clipping, distortion, IMD, poor NB performance, etc. If people operate the 7300 this way (and there's no reason to suspect otherwise), it's no wonder its performance is compromised. Even the nicest superhet will eventually fold under that kind of abuse. I can't say you guys are wrong. I don't even have the gear to double-check the ARRL or Sherwood numbers myself, so I can't prove that those numbers are accurate. But if the 7300's receiver is as awful as some people are trying to make it out to be, there is something horribly wrong with lab testing (and using lab testing to select/shop for a receiver).