[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] CQWW and Signal Reports

Subject: [CQ-Contest] CQWW and Signal Reports
From: luther@mail.mdt.net.au (Martin Luther)
Date: Tue Oct 29 01:49:39 2002
Is it time to do away with RS(T) in CQWW, or is it already

Paul EI5DI

No, I disagree, Paul,

I had a few like you doing the same thing. I needed repeats on about half of
them. Apart from the "legal" aspects, the 59 tends to tune my ears in to the
signal in the noise and then I am ready for the zone confirmation. It is
even more important in contests with serial numbers  where I actually have
to hear the lot.

The other problem was people speaking before the TX was on so all I got was
(in the case of Zone 14)...." Rteen"

Finally I do actually give reports different from 59 sometimes. Listen
carefully it may be your turn next Hi Hi.

George K5KG's comments on a proper Audio quality report that affects the
result is interesting. There are certainly a lot of very ordinary sounding
signals out there. I comment to the worst of them but there are many others
that are just plain difficult to read and spreading unnecessarily. The idea
has some problems as we can affect someone elses result by giving them a bad
report. It would need some check on the reporter as well as the reportee???
Or work on some statistical average result over the whole test?


Martin VK5GN

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>