They either do it on purpose or they're so convinced of their technological
greatness they've convinced themselves their audio is perfect.
Either way, mentioning it won't have much effect: it will either confirm to
them they set it the way they intended (more complaints the better), or
they'll dismiss you as a technological pretender with no real knowledge,
and, by the way, 'How DARE you have the temerity to question my audiological
prowess? Don't you know who I am?'
The best fix is for everybody to vote with their feet. Don't work 'em.
73, kelly
ve4xt
On 4/10/15 12:52 PM, "Mike Fatchett W0MU" <w0mu@w0mu.com> wrote:
> I have never understood thought process behind not publicly "outing" the
>
offenders. Most of them know they have crappy or very wide audio. They
do
> it on purpose.
The best medicine would to pass these lousy signals by but
> people won't
because they have to have that one contact, at least tell them
> their
audio is lousy and you hope that nobody reports them, ahem.....
Mike
> W0MU
On 4/10/2015 5:09 AM, Pete Smith N4ZR wrote:
> Not only that, but the
> number of awards thereafter could be halved,
> saving ARRL and other
> societies lots of money.
>
> But seriously, folks, can you imagine the mess
> that would result if
> the same phone ops who "amuse" us with their lousy
> audio added either
> subaudible tones or 100 wpm CW to their awful
> signals.
>
> I'm waiting with interest to see whether CQWW follows through on
> rule
> XII (A) (5) and disciplines at least a few stations for
>
> excessivebandwidth. I'm not interested in outing a list of those
>
> disciplined, necessarily, but I hope at least the number of actions
> taken
> is made public, so that people know the committee is serious.
> With the
> tools now available, in particular whole contest recordings
> and SDR
> panadaptors, it should be possible to objectively define
> excessive
> bandwidth (e.g., level in dB relative to peak amplitude,
> versus frequency
> difference).
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
> Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
>
> http://reversebeacon.net,
> blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
> For spots,
> please go to your favorite
> ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node.
>
> On 4/10/2015
> 12:55 AM, Bokverket wrote:
>> ----- Ursprungligt meddelande -----
>> Från:
> "Bokverket" <info@bokverket.com>
>> Till: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
>>
> Skickat: den 9 april 2015 13:15
>> Ämne: Suggestion for Cabrillo -- and the
> phone skimmer, new idea
>>
>>
>> Rarely do one's wishes be fulfilled so soon,
> even retroactively!
>>
>> Goran/SM0DRD, who thinks that hte subaudible tones
> that someone
>> mentioned
>> would be a great step towards a quick
> realization of the phone
>> skimmer. But
>> even better would be ***
> combining cw and SSB into one signal ***
>> The cw
>> could be sent at 100
> or something wpm like a rattle, just as with those
>> obsolete spy
> transmissions. It won't disturb the audio since there is so
>> much overdrive
> noise already, and can then be detected easily by a new
>> version of the cw
> skimmer.
>>
>> But what's more, we could halve the number of contests!!! Save
> countless
>> $$'s and marriages. And for die-hard cw only people, the number
> of
>> contacts
>> will increase and the extra transmitted phone messages can
> be
>> automatically
>> generated.
>>
>> 73,
>> Goran/SM0DRD
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
>> 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
_____________________
> __________________________
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
|