- 1. [CQ-Contest] QSK or not (score: 1)
- Author: Claude Du Berger <duberger.miousse81@globetrotter.net>
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:20:20 -0500
- Hello group. I have been using QSK during contest for long time. My L4B/QSK is working just fine. After watching couple of guys doing CW contest on YouTube and also listening to K5ZD audio live! I am
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-11/msg00512.html (6,547 bytes)
- 2. Re: [CQ-Contest] QSK or not (score: 1)
- Author: Barry <w2up3@verizon.net>
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:02:36 +0000
- I've never liked QSK. It's too distracting, especially when running SO2R. 73, Barry W2UP -- Barry Kutner, W2UP Newtown, PA _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-C
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-11/msg00513.html (7,147 bytes)
- 3. Re: [CQ-Contest] QSK or not (score: 1)
- Author: PaulKB8N@aol.com
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:42:26 EST
- Claude, Many SO2R ops prefer semi-break because it is much easier listening on the second receiver when the QSK isn't clicking on every character. You'll also notice that most SO2R ops turn their sid
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-11/msg00514.html (7,476 bytes)
- 4. Re: [CQ-Contest] QSK or not (score: 1)
- Author: Fabian Kurz <lists@telegraphy.de>
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:59:11 +0100
- When working SO2R, I want the run radio to be quiet while I transmit, so I can concentrate on radio 2. When working SO1R, I love to use QSK. It gives you the possibility to operate a lot more 'agress
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-11/msg00515.html (7,853 bytes)
- 5. [CQ-Contest] QSK or not (score: 1)
- Author: "Eric Hilding" <b38@hilding.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 08:53:18 -0800
- Paul, K5AF, wrote: Ø Many SO2R ops prefer semi-break because it is much easier listening on the Ø second receiver when the QSK isn't clicking on every character. You'll also Ø no
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-11/msg00519.html (7,342 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu