[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] E2E is real

To: s56a@bit.si, cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] E2E is real
From: Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:43:41 -0600 (CST)
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Well, I for one have always enjoyed the "novelty" of certain exotic calls.
To read, as part of this thread, that use of EE5E was discontinued because the 
RBN software was having fits with the call is disappointing.
I'd hate to hear about E2E or similiar calls going the same way, especially for 
the same reasons.
There's something very wrong with the process, if we are adjusting our 
operating techniques & procedures to accomodate the automation. Either we have 
to accept that the automation is not perfect... or those working on the 
automation have to keep improving it (and I know that they are). 
As Barry W2UP just said... that seems like a case of the tail wagging the dog.
73, ron w3wn

On 02/20/13, Marijan Miletic, S56A wrote:

E2E is no problem at all as two dashes are strongly against string of dots
high probability. One can eliminate all EISH5 dot combinations losing about
14 callsigns from master.dta not including recent ES5HS!

Skimmer uses spectral analysis and strong signals have a lot of artifacts,
even cliks! So E insertion error is frequent.

HF QSB can be up to 120 dB/sec causing omission errors. Skimmer is very
good on both using Bayesian statistics.

Just be bit humble on our OF typos so frequent on DX Clusters before VE3NEA
CW Skimmer.

LP MMM S56A, N1YU decoding HF CW by PC DSP since 1988.

CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list

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