Great, we have the freq police, the UP police, and now the Rig Police.
If I am op within the law, I will be darned if I allow any self appointed
Rig Police to dictate my rig choice. Charly
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Yan (XV4Y) <email@example.com> wrote:
> Yes, comparing against one rig is difficult, and we are lucky the top rig
> in the list is rather affordable.
> What would it be if the Hilberling PT-8000A was blowing everything else.
> One the other hand, a truly faire rule is rather complex to elaborate, and
> we have to keep in consideration what is economically and technically
> feasible at the given time.
> I'm thinking of something in the same vein as (don't take the actual
> numbers in consideration) :
> "Generated side noise no 20dB worst at 5KHz from the carrier than the 5
> best transceivers costing no more than 3 times the monthly minimum wage".
> That said, as you stated, the test equipment and measuring conditions are
> very important to give a meaning to the numbers...
> Yannick DEVOS - XV4Y
> Le 19 oct. 2014 à 09:41, firstname.lastname@example.org a écrit :
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 01:06:23 -0000
> > From: "Randy Thompson K5ZD" <email@example.com>
> > To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Handicap For Dirty Rigs
> > Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> > It is true that some rigs (depending on how they are operated) can
> > signals that appear wider than normal. Can you think of a way to express
> > this in technical terms rather than using a K3 as a reference.
> > needs to have a dialog around what is the accepted standard for signal
> > or "cleanliness".
> > What test equipment would some use to evaluate their own signal in the
> > shack?
> > What would be a good test standard for someone listening to capture the
> > essence of the signal quality?
> > Randy, K5ZD
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list