I'd agree that shorter is not necessarily better. My current call has a very
nice rhythm and I find it is almost always copied correctly. It's not much
shorter than my old call per the "morse weight" calculators out there, but it
is nice in that my suffix is a Morse palindrome, for want of a better word, and
one which is not easy to mistake for other letter combos. I won't be changing
it any time soon. :)
73,
Sean - VA5LF (aka VE5SMC)
On 2012-02-15, at 8:35 PM, John Unger wrote:
> On aspect of a call, either short or long, that hasn't been mentioned and
> that I have found to be helpful is its "rhythm". Certain letter
> combinations just seem to flow together in CW better than others. I think
> that's one reason why folks don't have much of a problem with Al's call. It
> is also one of the reasons I chose my new call in 1996.
>
> 73 - John, W4AU
>
>
> At 18:19 2/15/2012, Al VE1AL wrote:
>> Since 1970 I have used VE1AL and before that VE1JN. I can count the number
>> of errors using a call ending with a dit on the fingers of one hand.
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Al, VE1AL
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|