Most CW ops that do not use full QSK do operate semi-QSK. And in that case the
delay between the amp key signal being asserted and the t/r relays closing and
settling reliably is just as critical as full QSK. Many non-QSK amps are
deficient in this area, which leads to hot switching, chopped initial
characters, loud initial transients, etc.
There is also the annoyance of the noise in the shack from clunky relays, also
an issue with SSB VOX.
Personally I use full QSK less than 10% of the time, but I would want a
QSK-capable amp even if I never used it.
Victor 4X6GP
> On 11 Oct 2018, at 19:47, Manfred Mornhinweg <manfred@ludens.cl> wrote:
>
>
> Tom,
>
>> Just because you don't operate CW doesn't mean there isn't a market out
>> there for a CW amplifier.
>
> I fully agree on that. The question is just how large that market is,
> compared to the market for an amplifier without QSK capability but slightly
> less expensive.
>
>> "More than 10,000 logs have been submitted for the CQ World Wide DX
>> Contest, according to Contest Director Bob Cox, K3EST.
>
> That shows how very few hams engage in contesting! Assuming that one third of
> all contesters worldwide participated in this most important international
> contest, that would tell that about 30,000 hams worldwide are at least
> occasional contesters - among a total ham population of roughly two million!
>
> Of course almost ALL contesters own at least one amp, while among the general
> ham population maybe one in ten owns an amp. Even so, contesters are only a
> minor part of the potential customer base for amplifiers, and a very minor
> part for other equipment.
>
> > In addition, Cox
>> reports that the number of CW logs have exceeded the number of phone logs
>> for the first time in more than 20 years.
>
> So this tells that CW is on the rise, at least among contesters. Indeed I
> have noticed some more interest in CW among local hams than, say, 10 or 20
> years ago. But I wonder what percentage of CW operators value QSK capability
> high enough to be willing to spend extra money on it. Surely many do, but
> just how many? In what little CW activity I ever had, I never really missed
> QSK. And those CW ops I know all have non-QSK amps, and seem to be happy.
>
> I'm not saying that QSK is worthless - far from it! I just think (and I fully
> admit the possibility of being wrong in this) that only a relatively small
> percentage of hams really values QSK highly enough to only buy an amp that
> features it.
>
> Just tuning through the bands, I do hear about as much CW activity as SSB
> activity. Also a lot of activity in a few specific digimodes. But most of the
> CW activity I hear does not seem to be in QSK. Only rarely do I hear a CW op
> breaking in and the other reacting to that. Most activity is with very clear
> and explicit TX/RX changeover, suggesting non-QSK operation. This is pretty
> much the same as VOX operation in SSB - most SSB operators aren't using VOX.
>
>> Evidently there is still a LOT of interest in CW.
>
> That's for sure. CW is far from being dead.
>
>> At least 5272 potential customers are out there.
>
> Assuming that every ham who submitted a log for the CQWWDX contest in CW is
> a potential customer for a specific QSK-capable amp is very misleading.
> Firstly, many CW ops seem to be happy with non-QSK amps. Secondly, those who
> buy only QSK amps will still spread out among all available QSK-capable amps,
> as customers. Thirdly, each ham might buy one amp in his lifetime, or perhaps
> a few, but will hardly run and buy a new amp just because it has become
> available. So the actual sales of a specific amp model to contesters, over
> its entire production run, will be FAR lower than the number of active
> contesters. And more importantly, a LOT of hams who aren't contesters also
> buy amps, so it would be wrong to judge the market for an amp by just looking
> at contesters!
>
> Well, anyone really wanting to know why that specific amp doesn't provide QSK
> capability should ask the manufacturer. Surely Flex has good reasons for it.
> In my previous post I outlined what I THINK these reasons could be, but I'm
> just speculating. I have never talked to anyone at Flex.
>
> And I don't mean to put down CW or its enthusiastic followers! I think that
> it's good that enough hams continue to cultivate this mode and keep it alive.
> The more variety we have, the better. But a manufacturer doesn't have any
> obligation to optimize all his products for a specific mode. Instead he might
> optimize SOME of them for CW, and others for other modes. And typically
> manufacturers will choose what tradeoffs to make according to what has the
> best market chances.
>
> Manfred
>
>
> ========================
> Visit my hobby homepage!
> http://ludens.cl
> ========================
> _______________________________________________
> Amps mailing list
> Amps@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|