I agree 100%. Why else would people spend extra money on expensive feedlines,
or better bandpass filters, or ... well, you name it. (I'll concede that
bigger antennas generally have a better pattern that helps on receive as well.)
A couple of years ago I mixed computer generated CW with band noise I recorded
from 80m (using a 400 Hz filter) to generate a few audio files with different
signal/noise ratios. I kept the noise energy the same and varied the CW audio
in one decibel increments. Three db literally made the difference between less
than 50% copy and perfect Q5 copy. Even the difference between +1 db and +2 db
(compared to my baseline file) was noticeable.
73,
Dave AB7E
------Original Mail------
From: "Steve Sacco NN4X" <nn4x@embarqmail.com>
To: "cq contest" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:31:40 -0400
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Station Inspections
Thirdly, the "it's only 3dB" argument is well-taken if you're comparing
S9+20dB signals, but spend time digging signals out of the noise, when
you would KILL for them to be JUST A LITTLE louder, and suddenly 3dB
(1/2 an S-unit) is enormous. That's not "opinion", it's fact.
73/DX
Steve
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|