Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Amps] QSK or not

To: "amps@contesting.com" <amps@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [Amps] QSK or not
From: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:45:04 -0600
List-post: <mailto:amps@contesting.com>
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:37:13 -0500, Ed Swynar wrote:

>I think to-day's operators are far sloppier in their
>sending than those of, say, 25 years ago, when QSK may NOT have been as
>prevalent as it is to-day

Until the advent of rice box transceivers designed primarily for SSB with 
CW as an afterthought, QSK was pretty much the rule on the CW bands. In 
fact, one of the major reasons for the high level of acceptance of Ten 
Tec by CW ops is that from the beginning, all of their products, both 
amps and transceivers, work full QSK and do it quite well. The same is 
true of Elecraft, also quite popular with CW ops, both contesters and 
otherwise. Luckily, most decent transceivers today will do QSK just fine. 

So it was the designers of equipment who made those decisions, and of 
purchasers when they bought the gear without QSK because there were few 
other choices. It costs more to build a transceiver and an amp with QSK, 
so the WalMart syndrome drove things. 

I've heard some folks say that they are distracted by hearing the band 
when they're trying to send. But if they hear stuff on their own 
frequency, perhaps they shouldn't be transmitting!  Or perhaps the RF 
gain is turned up too high, or the IF filter is too broad. Some ops need 
to write it all down to copy it, other more experienced ops don't. As the 
old musician gag goes, "How do you get to Carnegie Hall?  -- practice, 
practice, practice." 

73,

Jim K9YC


_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>