Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+The\s+QSK\s+of\s+SSB\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+The\s+QSK\s+of\s+SSB\s*$/: 20 ]

Total 20 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] The QSK of SSB (score: 1): Author: <al_lorona@agilent.com>; Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 21:05:52 -0600; Now that we've established that the vast majority of CW ops strongly prefer QSK under all operating circumstances, I have a question. Do the vast majority of SSB ops strongly prefer VOX-- which is so; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00672.html (7,214 bytes)
2. Re: [TenTec] The QSK of SSB (score: 1): Author: "Dave Edwards" <kd2e@comcast.net>; Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 23:13:17 -0400; I think the vast majority of CW ops do NOT prefer QSK. But, perhaps the vast majority of those subscribed to a TenTec list do. Also, I think very few hams use VOX. ...Dave -- Original Message -- From; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00673.html (7,755 bytes)
3. Re: [TenTec] The QSK of SSB (score: 1): Author: Ken Brown <ken.d.brown@verizon.net>; Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 17:46:15 -1000; Now that we've established that the vast majority of CW ops strongly prefer QSK under all operating circumstances, I have a question. Al, I don't believe that has been established. Do the vast majori; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00674.html (7,476 bytes)
4. Re: [TenTec] The QSK of SSB (score: 1): Author: "Grant Youngman" <nq5t@comcast.net>; Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 00:52:58 -0500; I have to admit I prefer QSK on CW. But to take a sample from the T-T list seriously skews results from what may be the case more generally. Don't like VOX. Like a footwitch. ut ere are a ot of ahh; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00676.html (7,197 bytes)
5. Re: [TenTec] The QSK of SSB (score: 1): Author: "Tommy" <aldermant@alltel.net>; Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 06:32:14 -0400; It's all a personal choice....after all, we do call this a hobby! Exception is contest, wherein I doubt seriously you will hear anyone NOT using QSK. Tom - W4BQF PS....What is this VOX thing? Is this; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00679.html (9,074 bytes)
6. Re: [TenTec] The QSK of SSB (score: 1): Author: "Mike Brown" <k9mi@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 13:00:17 -0000; list do. Dave, in SSB contesting VOX and headsets is the preferred method of operating. This keeps both hands free for keyboard use when logging. Some probably do use foot switches for PTT keying. B; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00683.html (11,180 bytes)
7. Re: [TenTec] The QSK of SSB (score: 1): Author: "Dave Edwards" <kd2e@comcast.net>; Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 09:05:56 -0400; Wrong. I suspect the hams that are in to contesting, and mark the contests off on the calendar use VOX, but the majority of hams do not use VOX. I've been on Field day every year since the SB102 days; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00684.html (12,766 bytes)
8. Re: [TenTec] The QSK of SSB (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 08:29:18 -0500; A CW operator who isn't using QSK on nets, in contests, and chasing DX is a LID. When you don't have QSK, you are still transmitting when the station you are calling has already come back to someone; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00685.html (8,921 bytes)
9. Re: [TenTec] The QSK of SSB (score: 1): Author: "Dave Edwards" <kd2e@comcast.net>; Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 09:38:42 -0400; So you've established that you prefer QSK. So do I! The original post said "the majority of cw ops prefer QSK" Which I still hold is far from correct. There is life outside TenTec, and the average Ya; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00687.html (9,830 bytes)
10. Re: [TenTec] The QSK of SSB (score: 1): Author: "Bill Rowlett" <kc4atu@hotmail.com>; Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 13:38:01 +0000; Call me odd, but I prefer VOX for the ragchew and PTT for the contest. In the heat of the battle, the odd four letter word is spoken which one does not want going out over the airways. VOX in a ragch; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00688.html (11,969 bytes)
11. Re: [TenTec] The QSK of SSB (score: 1): Author: Kc9cdt@aol.com; Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 10:12:44 EDT; Vox was designed and implemented so we would not have to keep manually going from TX to RX during a conversation. With that comes "VOX DELAY' when set correctly it makes for a very nice conversationa; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00691.html (8,958 bytes)
12. Fwd: [TenTec] The QSK of SSB (score: 1): Author: Kc9cdt@aol.com; Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 10:15:24 EDT; _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00692.html (7,746 bytes)
13. Re: [TenTec] The QSK of SSB (score: 1): Author: "Mike Brown" <k9mi@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 14:24:48 -0000; Thanks Dave! Now I know I am not "Joe Average Ham". What a relief! I use VOX every FD also. Wow, I'm feeling better all the time! Mike, K9MI contests off on 1972, and never keyboard, and Joe grabs hi; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00693.html (14,642 bytes)
14. Re: [TenTec] The QSK of SSB (score: 1): Author: "Grant Youngman" <nq5t@comcast.net>; Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 09:33:22 -0500; Isn't that the truth :-) Not terribly long ago there were lengthy diatribes on here by some individuals who absolutely INSISTED that the Orion was worthless in a CW contest station because, at the t; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00695.html (9,471 bytes)
15. Re: [TenTec] The QSK of SSB (score: 1): Author: "James C. Owen, III" <k4cgy_list@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 09:39:27 -0700 (PDT); Hi Al, As a causal CW operator I prefer QSK but don't really mind not using it sometimes. On SSB I always (well 95% of the time) use VOX. I run a phone net and wouldn't be without it there. During co; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00706.html (10,167 bytes)
16. Re: [TenTec] The QSK of SSB (score: 1): Author: Ken Brown <ken.d.brown@verizon.net>; Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 08:37:24 -1000; ut ere are a ot of ahh hams who use ox, ahhh badly djusted :-) If the TX audio were digitized and then delayed, it would be possible for the VOX to turn on the transmitter after the beginning of a wo; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00710.html (9,314 bytes)
17. Re: [TenTec] The QSK of SSB (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 13:53:51 -0500; For at least several decades, the designers of studio/broadcast quality devices like compressors and limiters have used "feed forward" techniques, whereby the audio path is delayed by a few ms but un; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00711.html (9,215 bytes)
18. Re: [TenTec] The QSK of SSB (score: 1): Author: "Grant Youngman" <nq5t@comcast.net>; Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 12:37:43 -0700; Somewhere in the dim past, such a device appeared in a QST article sometime in the 80's(?), with circuit boards available from A&A engineering. I think it was called SmartVox or something like that.; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00714.html (9,701 bytes)
19. Re: [TenTec] The QSK of SSB (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 15:55:08 -0500; Yes Jim _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00719.html (8,875 bytes)
20. Re: [TenTec] The QSK of SSB (score: 1): Author: "Stuart Rohre" <rohre@arlut.utexas.edu>; Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 17:11:45 -0500; ARE the bucket brigade analog memory chips even still made? Might be hard to find them now. But perhaps an 8 bit A/D would work for voice SSB. -Stuart K5KVH __________________________________________; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00726.html (8,328 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1]