Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Readability\s+of\s+signals\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Readability\s+of\s+signals\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Readability of signals (score: 1): Author: luther@mail.mdt.net.au (Martin Luther); Date: Thu Dec 16 00:02:13 1999; Recent posts have raised the issue of good readable signals. I think this is becoming a neglected art. In the last few contests there have been a number of signals that have poor audio. That doesn't; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-12/msg00148.html (8,301 bytes)
2. [CQ-Contest] Readability of signals (score: 1): Author: K4BAI@worldnet.att.net (John T. Laney, III); Date: Thu Dec 16 09:27:17 1999; The worst problem I have with cw readability in contests is the very large number of stations who have dots that are so light that I can't read them easily. I guess this results from too many ops usi; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-12/msg00155.html (7,428 bytes)
3. [CQ-Contest] Readability of signals (score: 1): Author: tegennett@SMLY-01.HFS.PURDUE.EDU (Tim Gennett); Date: Fri Dec 17 07:25:38 1999; I am most challenged by the opposite: dashes that are so light that my ability to distinguish between dots and dashes disappears. If traditional weighting calls for a 1 to 3 ratio of dots to dashes,; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-12/msg00172.html (7,472 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]