Once again, the problem is not generally that one cannot read the bad signal,
especially on CW. The problem is that you can read them somewhere (like a Khz
away) that you should not be able to read them.
Also a signal report is rarely copied or paid attention to. On occasion I've
sent 4NN signal reports, and maybe one in five folks even break tempo as one
would expect if they had really copied what I had sent.
Hence, the need for something that will get their attention and not merely turn
into another QSO in their log.
And this Q-signal issue is primarily for CW. It's pretty easy to tell a guy on
phone that his processing is too high, he has hum, is breaking up, can be heard
5 KHz up the band, etc.
73 - Jim K8MR
From: Zack Widup <email@example.com>
To: CQ Contest <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wed, May 13, 2015 2:33 pm
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] [Bulk] Re: Q-Signals for Contesting
Actually, I would think that the "Readability" number would go less than 5
you couldn't "read" them. Maybe a "39" or a "29" for a signal report.
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 9:43 AM, RT Clay <email@example.com>
> >On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 8:37 AM, Joe <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >Vlad how about a signal SSB so processed it's barely
> Obviously you give them more than "5" on the "readability"
> indicate they "turned the processing knob to 11"
> 59 = perfect
audio69 = slight over-processing, some syllables lost
> 99 = loud but
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list