In a message dated 11/11/04 12:46:18 GMT Standard Time, Cqtestk4xs@aol.com
writes:
> I have never been a fan of different voices for the CQ machine and the op.
>
>
Neither have I Bill. Aesthetically (or what ever the aural equivalent is) it
just sounds crass. It can also send the subliminal message that the operator
can't be bothered to program his own voice, which may influence the take-up
rate from those callers who don't particularly 'need' to make the contact i.e
some casual ops.
Just 'using' a DVK, for instance, could also convey a similar message, a la
'I can't be bothered to CQ myself'. A running op who is obviously calling 'for
real' may well elicit a greater response from casual S&Pers tuning across
him, as they could perceive he that he really does 'need' that next qso.
My tips for DVK users would include re-recording the CQ at some stage in the
contest when one's voice pitch has risen. Often pre-recorded messages which
sound fine b4 the event, sound short on purpose/energy in the heat of the
battle. Some sound quite droll.....avoid trailling a intonation at the end if
poss. The rising intonation that we adopt instinctively when we are 'actually'
calling ourselves, is often missing in the 'generated' version.
Clearly the benefits of such boxes outweigh the disadvantages but keeping in
mind how it sounds to the guy at the other end, could pay dividends.
Al G0XBV
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|