On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 03:45:19PM -0500, ALANNOTTAGE@aol.com wrote:
> 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.
Absolutely. Even after a few years of serious phone contesting, I find that
I have a much better chance of understanding what someone is saying the
second time I hear them transmit. The very first time you hear them transmit,
your brain is still working on decoding accent, pitch, cadence, and other
voice qualities - and the more samples you have to work with, the more clues,
the easier it is to focus in on the actual speech content. This is why,
when I may not quite get the callsign the first time around, I often get
it a lot easier the second time, even if nothing else is different. My
brain starts out with more clues to work with the second time around.*
So, from the perspective of someone calling CQ, I think it benefits you
to keep everything as smooth as possible - same accent, same pitch, same
cadence, same mic gain, same compression, same actual voice... anything
that adds an element of disruption or confusion makes it slightly harder
for the other operator to understand you, and slightly less likely that
your CQ will be attractive enough to merit a reply.
The very least attractive stations are those that use a recording for
everything - including numbers and callsigns assembled from individual
phonetic character sound files. They can never be fast and smooth and
they sound terrible. (CW operators would never think of sending each
character at a different speed and pitch - why should a phone operator
want to do so?) I don't understand why anyone who can actually talk
in real life would want to present themselves that way over the air.
When I use a DVK, I only use it for CQing. Sending the exchange, calling a
station, asking for fills, and saying thanks are all best done live for
consistency and adaptability. I like to record my CQ messages on the fly,
and re-record them periodically during the contest - maybe every few hours
or so, depending on how things are going. (And you should always use the
same mic to make the DVK recordings that you are using live on the air.)
This allows you to adjust the CQ message to the tempo of the contest at
the moment, and to the current pitch of your voice - minimizing the
disruption your audience will experience transitioning from recording to
live voice.
I've operated single-op 12 and 24 hour phone contests without a DVK before -
it's certainly possible to do so and finish with a reasonable performance.
Using a DVK can improve the performance, if used appropriately.
(*Understanding someone the very first time you hear them transmit and
being able to copy their transmission without error, regardless of their
accent, pitch, cadence, speed, strength, etc. is one of the great
challenges - and fundamental skills - of phone contesting that I still
enjoy working on.)
--
Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
kenharker@kenharker.com
http://www.kenharker.com/
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|