CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Fwd: [wsjtgroup] WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc6

To: ku8e <ku8e@ku8e.com>, Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com>, "cq-contest@contesting.com" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Fwd: [wsjtgroup] WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc6
From: Ken K6MR <k6mr@outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 01:00:50 +0000
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
“Why are people talking about some digital mode on a reflector that's supposed 
to be for contesting? It's never going to be the dominant mode for 
contesting...”



If I was a betting man I would posit that within several years there will be 
more logs submitted for a FT4/whatever mode contest than for most of the other 
‘major’ contests.  At some point the software will either automagically submit 
the log or the logs will be submitted in real time.



Not my cup ‘o tea, but plenty of folks like it.



Ken K6MR



________________________________
From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com> on behalf of ku8e 
<ku8e@ku8e.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 9:27:58 AM
To: Paul O'Kane; cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Fwd: [wsjtgroup] WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc6

Why are people talking about some digital mode on a reflector that's supposed 
to be for contesting? It's never going to be the dominant mode for 
contesting... at least I hope not. If you're getting excited about using a mode 
that you're making 30 QSO'S per hour or less in a contest I feel  bad for you 
:)I guess I'm maybe old fashioned like Paul and prefer modes where the operator 
is copying something with their own brain. But if you want to operate these 
computer modes all the power to you. I just pray it doesn't take over ham 
radio. If it does I will be finding a new hobby.I tried doing some RTTY 
contesting in the past but got bored with it pretty quickly.  I have also used 
FT8 in VHF contests when the band is dead. Will probably continue to do that in 
the future to boost my score.JeffSent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com> Date: 
6/3/19  7:22 PM  (GMT-05:00) To: cq-contest@contesting.com Subject: Re: 
[CQ-Contest] Fwd: [wsjtgroup] WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc6 On 03/06/2019 20:44, David 
Gilbert wrote:>> You're talking to a wall.This "wall" listens, and has 
opinions, and explains the reasoning behinditsopinions. Insofar as my opinions 
deviate from "generally perceivedwisdom" (my quotes), they are often derided or 
unwelcome.> Paul always does this stuff ... if you don't view ham radio the way 
he > does you aren't doing ham radio.Only to the extent that I don't accept 
that everything done in the name ofham radio, by ham-radio operators, is 
invariably or necessarily ham radio.> What Paul is never able to grasp is that 
"ham radio" covers a much > broader scope than he perceives, and that includes 
contesting.  As > long as contest sponsors are thoughtful enough to properly 
categorize > activities, I can find no problem at all with there being CW 
contests, > SSB contests, RTTY contests, FT4 contests, etc.What I cannot 
"grasp" or accept is that automated machine-to-machinecontacts represent ham 
radio, even when a ham-radio operator orcontester has fired up the station and 
computer, and set theappropriateapp going.> They simply require different 
combinations of skills, and having > different types of contests simply serves 
the broader interests of > hams in general.  It's still ham radio.No skill is 
needed for automated machine-to-machine contacts.That includes FT8 and/or FT4.  
YouTube has examples.> It's ridiculous and purely arbitrary to assert that the 
only valid > contests are those where hams do their own decoding (which of 
course > leaves out the very popular RTTY mode).Equally, it's ridiculous and 
arbitrary to give contesting or DXCCcredit for automated contacts - ones that 
take place and are loggedwith no human intervention whatsoever.> What about 
encoding?   I would bet that most contesters today don't > send their own 
information, at least not on CW and RTTY.  We push a > button on the keyboard 
and the logger does it for us.  Why should only > one direction of the 
communication path need to fit Paul's narrow > view? I have literally done 
entire major CW contests without ever > touching the paddle (and had half the 
received callsigns/reports > auto-filled for me by the logger to boot).Ward 
N0AX explained it better than I could - in April 2008.   "Dealing with 
automated reception differently than automated   transmission is appropriate 
because only reception can initiate   a QSO; whether in response to a 
solicitation (CQ) or from   tuning to a solicitation (S&P). Reception is 
qualitatively   different in this regard than 
transmission."http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/cq-contest/2008-April/079851.html
   and -   "You can cast the lure as much as you want, but if no fish   bites, 
you have not caught a fish. There must be a reception   event to trigger the 
process by which a QSO is conducted.   Both reception and transmission are 
necessary, but neither   is sufficient. Transmission events soliciting QSOs 
typically   outnumber reception events many-to-one. (Which key on your   
keyboard is the most worn - F1 or Insert?) Thus, reception   is the critical 
element in allowing the transaction to   
proceed."http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/cq-contest/2008-April/079860.html>
 I wouldn't like to see contests lump fully automated QSOs with > non-automated 
ones, We're agreed on that, at least :-)> but the signal processing argument is 
bogus.That's a misquote.  I introduced the term "data processing" (thedata 
exchanged in a data-mode contact) - not "signal processing".> The ability for 
FT4 to copy weak signals comes at the cost of speed, > and I can list other 
disparities between stations as well. If I have a > rig with better DSP 
capabilities I'm going to be able to hear stations > somebody with a lesser rig 
won't.  It's not my proficiency that makes > a difference ... it's PROCESSING 
that does.Signal processing helps us all, and operating proficiency never 
goesto waste.> If I have narrower filters than somebody else does I can pick 
out > stations from a pack better than somebody else could.  It's not my > 
proficiency that makes a difference ... it's PROCESSING.They both make a 
difference.> FT4 is simply a digital modeNot quite!  It's a digital data mode 
with data processing and errorchecking capabilities - a mode which can easily 
be fully automated.> with different processing tradeoffs, and why Paul thinks 
that the > possibilities being "limitless" is a problem is beyond me.Nowhere 
did I suggest the possibilities were "limitless". WhatIsaid was "the potential 
combinations (for new data modes) arelimitless". I look forward to FT4 Release 
Candidate 8 in the nearfuture.> The DSP found in almost all modern rigs is 
itself "processing". It > takes the analog signal from the antenna, slices and 
dices it to bits, > runs it through various software algorithms, transforms it 
in both > time and frequency domains, and reconstructs it to audio.Agreed, but 
it's not data processing in the sense I intended - texttransmission/reception 
with automatic error correction.> And what is so special about audio?  It is 
merely one of our senses.Here we go again - another misquote. I suggested 
"ham-radio operatorsdo their own decoding", and was careful to not specify a 
sense.<snip>> Diversity is healthy.That's a trite, feel-good statement that 
means nothing in particular.Competitive swimming doesn't "diversify" by 
permitting flippers.New technology is generally deemed to be inappropriate when 
its effectsaredisproportionate or when its use would change the nature of 
thecompetitive activity concerned.I suggest we're there now with 
fully-automated FT8 and FT4 - andI can't help feeling AB7E agrees :-)73,Paul 
EI5DI>> 73,> Dave   AB7E>> p.s. I can't wait to see what kind of private 
message Paul will send > me this time.>>>> On 6/3/2019 9:25 AM, Chuck Dietz 
wrote:>> I don’t have any idea what you are saying here. Are you just bad >> 
mouthing>> digital modes?>>>> Chuck W5PR>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:55 AM 
Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com> wrote:>>>>> Great - we have yet another data 
mode. There is no single data mode >>> that>>> is>>> "best" in all respects.  
It's always a compromise between time, signal>>> rate,>>> bandwidth and number 
of discrete channels or tones - the potential>>> combinations>>> are 
limitless.>>>>>> What all data modes (including RTTY) have in common is that 
they >>> require>>> machine decoding.  It seems to me that ham-radio contesters 
do their >>> own>>> decoding, whether it's CW or Phone.  Everything else is 
data processing>>> and,>>> increasingly, fully-automated data processing.>>>>>> 
Let's leave data modes to the Data-Processing-over-RF apps.>>>>>> 73,>>> Paul 
EI5DI>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/06/2019 19:49, Jim Brown wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>> -------- 
Forwarded Message -------->>>> Subject: [wsjtgroup] WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc6>>>> Date: 
Sun, 2 Jun 2019 14:32:20 -0400>>>> From: Joe Taylor joe@Princeton.EDU 
[wsjtgroup]>>>> <wsjtgroup-noreply@yahoogroups.com>>>>> Reply-To: Joe Taylor 
<joe@Princeton.EDU>>>>> To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com 
<wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com>>>>>>>>> To:   Users of WSJT-X -- especially those 
interested in radio >>>> contesting>>>> From: WSJT Development Group>>>>>>>> As 
you know, we have been developing a protocol called FT4 for use in>>>> radio 
contesting.  A new version of FT4 is now available for testing>>>> in WSJT-X 
2.1.0-rc6.>>>>>>>> PLEASE NOTE THAT FT4 IN RELEASE CANDIDATE 6 IS NOT 
COMPATIBLE WITH>>>> THAT IN ANY PREVIOUS RELEASE.>>>>>>>> Therefore: Please 
stop using WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5.  If you wish to use FT4>>>> after today or to take 
advantage of other recent program corrections>>>> or enhancements, you should 
use WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc6.>>>>>> _______________________________________________>>> 
CQ-Contest mailing list>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com>>> 
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>>>>> 
_______________________________________________>> CQ-Contest mailing list>> 
CQ-Contest@contesting.com>> 
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>> 
_______________________________________________> CQ-Contest mailing list> 
CQ-Contest@contesting.com> 
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest_______________________________________________CQ-Contest
 mailing 
listCQ-Contest@contesting.comhttp://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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