To: | tentec@contesting.com |
---|---|
Subject: | [TenTec] CW Audio tone |
From: | "Richard Detweiler" <rdetweil@hotmail.com> |
Reply-to: | tentec@contesting.com |
Date: | Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:34:57 -0600 |
List-post: | <mailto:tentec@contesting.com> |
Hi Bill and all, I will second your statements here, I also use very low audio tones. about 250 to 350, and 350 to 500 for a casual chat. If I may add this. I think the big reason for using lower tones is that the static at the frequencies above 500 hz seem to be more annoying to me. It just seems to get in the way of the signal. So a noise floor signal is more readable if i'm not distracted by the noise. Also, I could be wrong, but I think the Lower frequency tones has more audio energy. Best 73's Rich K5SF From: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu> Reply-To: tentec@contesting.com To: tentec@contesting.com Subject: [TenTec] New roofing filter in Omni VI- Opt. 1 Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:35:40 -0500 _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | RE: [TenTec] Orion mic preamp question., Robert Carroll |
---|---|
Next by Date: | [TenTec] (no subject), JOHN |
Previous by Thread: | [TenTec] New roofing filter in Omni VI- Opt. 1, Bill Tippett |
Next by Thread: | Re: [TenTec] CW Audio tone... why not use a Binaural CW audio filter?, Jerry Volpe |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |