VHF SS Score Summary

es at mvuss.att.com es at mvuss.att.com
Mon Jan 31 14:24:00 EST 1994

Jan 1994 VHF SS Early Scores
Noticeably absent from these listings: WA2TEO, N2CEI, W1RIL, K1RZ, WA3AXV,...
Please send any additional scores. K1TR @ K1XX or Internet: es at mvuss.att.com

BAND      KA1ZE     WZ1V     K1TR     N1DPM    AA1AK    AI1K    WA2SCA
------    -------   ------   -------  -------  -----    -----   -----
50MHz     152/41    206/50   154/37   61/24    121/20   -/-     -/-
144       441/33    303/36   260/25   171/22   196/18   204/23  2/1
220       93/18     61/16    85/16    69/14    -/-      -/-     -/-
432       167/24    111/22   117/17   89/15    21/7     21/4    1/1
903       34/12     27/11    15/3     29/11    
1.2GHz    48/11     39/14    30/7     42/13    
2.3       10/4                        11/4
3.4       5/3                         7/4
TOTAL     950/146   747/149  661/105  479/107  338/45   225/27   3/2
          227.9k    166.4k   104.8k   104.4k   16.2k    6.6k     4


39/8 -> 304

Single-Band (2 meters):

WS1C      KZ2S      VE3LL    K5ZD
------    -------   ------   -------  -------  -----    -----   -----
356/23    195/25    76/20    47/6
8188      4875      1520     282


153/54 -> 8262


BAND      K3MQH     W3ZZ     KA1EKR   K5LLL
------    -------   ------   -------  -------  -----    -----   -----
50MHz     238/40    224/43   100/26   33/13
144       636/50    532/48   150/19   97/19
220       101/23    74/23    11/3     -/-
432       229/35    171/30   62/11    35/12
1.3GHz                                4/3
TOTAL     1204/148  1003/145 323/59   169/47
          227k      181.8k   23.4k    10.2k


BAND      N2WK      W1NY     W3IP
------    -------   ------   -------  -------  -----    -----   -----
50MHz     191/48    272/55   81/24
144       426/50    380/30   297/31
220       119/28    115/19   49/16
432       186/35    231/27   85/21
903       45/17     33/11    13/5
1.2GHz    41/13     55/13    31/9
2.3       25/9      12/4     1/1
3.4       15/6      5/3
5.6       7/6
10        18/3               1/1
24        4/2
TOTAL     1077/217  1102/162 558/108
          462k      297k     90.5k

>From Edward Parish <parish at Think.COM>  Mon Jan 31 20:18:30 1994
From: Edward Parish <parish at Think.COM> (Edward Parish)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 94 15:18:30 EST
Subject: DSP Filter summary:
Message-ID: <9401312018.AA06149 at thor.think.com>

Here are selected comments from the DSP survey that I asked for last week.
I think that white noise reduction for a long contest might be worth
investigating a dsp.  Thanks to all who responded.

-...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...-

From: "Dick Dievendorff" <dieven at almaden.ibm.com>

NF6S demonstrated his TimeWave DSP-59 at the NCCC meeting last Friday
night.  I think it's a 16-bit DSP chip.  It had lots of neat features,
maybe too many.  I may buy one.  They're $300 and in short supply.  HRO
carries them, but may not have stock.

I've used a Datong FL-3 for some years and I bought one of Mike Fleming's
DSP-120 boxes, so I have some DSP experience.  I use a filter that notches
out carriers in most phone contests to reduce fatigue.  I long for a DSP in
the IF strip, something the military has had for at least 10 years.

If you're running it may be too much fiddley to play with filters.  I tend
to run as wide open as I can, and then use PassBand Tuning to narrow it
when I need it.  I'm hoping a DSP will help with static on the LF bands.

73 de Dick, AA6MC, G0MFO

-...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...-

From: Michael Mraz <mikemr at microsoft.com>

I use a Timewave DSP-59. I'm a "semi-serious" contester (i.e., I contest, but
not with the goal of winning).

	Essential---mod the rig so that the DSP is in the detector audio
	path ONLY (not in the "monitor" or sidetone audio). I usually
	use the DSP only for noise reduction (reduces fatigue).

	I like the DSP-59 but of course I haven't used anything else.

	I'm 99.9% CW so this really doesn't apply to me. I set it on
	noise reduction mode and forget it.

	The DSP is great on SSB weak signal work. Noise reduction actually
	improves the s/n ratio noticeably. AGC pumping makes heterodyne eliminator
	filter useless when carrier>>signal.

	Using the outboard DSP in the speaker audio is a joke---you lose your
	audio features (i.e., headphone jack, external speaker, external audio
	to rear panel for TNC/SSTV/etc.) and you end up DSP-ing your monitor
	audio (i.e. you can lose your CW sidetone if it's outside the passband).
	There is no substitute for building it in. Modding the rig is fairly easy,
	since you're working at audio. I modified my IC-765 as indicated.

-...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...-

From: barry at w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner)

Hi Ed - I think I missed your original posting. I am using a W9GR unit that
I built from the article in QST 1-2 years ago. The auto notch works very
well. The white noise filter works well too. I really havent played with
the audio bandpass filters much. For contesting, I really havent found the
unit to be very helpful - meaning it really hasn't allowed me to copy
signals I couldnt copy otherwise.  I hear the DSP-9 by Timewave is popular
and works well, but have no personal experience.

73 Barry W2UP  'SZ class of '78

-...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...-

From: kr2j at aol.com

I think the main difference for contesting purposes is that you would be
more tolerant of distortion of the desired signal in favor of reduced

My preference was strictly by price.  I paid $139 for my TimeWave DSP-9 in
Dayton last year.

The DSP-9 has no adjustments - only pushbutton selection of a few pre-set

The DSP-9 works remarkably well for both modes.  For SSB, it's most
outstanding capability is the multiple carrier notching feature.  Also, the
bandwidth filtering removes the off-frequency stations that are sometimes
described as filter leakage.

For very weak signals, I find that my ears work better than the DSP unit.
You will want to be able to completely bypass the DSP unit for these
situations.  I don't mean pressing the bypass button on the front panel
here but actually going directly to the receiver's audio.  Even when
"bypassed" using the internal switch, the DSP unit is doing an Analog to
Digital to Analog conversion on the recieved audio without "DSP'ing" the

Based on demos that I saw in Dayton of the NIR and TimeWave units, I don't
think that spending more money actually gets better performance - just more
options.  I couldn't justify the additional cost of either the DSP-59 or
the NIR units.

As I indicated in my first comment, during a contest, you will be more
tolerant of distortion of the original signal.  For ragchewing, you will
alwqys switch the DSP unit out because it changes the way voices "sound".
It's not bad, but you will notice it especially on familiar voices.  DSP is
not perfect - yet.  While it does improve most operating conditions, it
will not fix every noise or interference problem you may run into and in
fact, you may find that you feel that it may not have been worth yor
investment.  In this case, give it some more time and you'll find that it
will make conditions that much better some other time.  73,

-...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...-

From: georgen at redwood.stortek.com (George Noyes x5698)

I have limited contest experience with a dsp, but have done some contest
operation and fair amount of ragchew operation with a DSP9.

In the contest scenario, I used an FT990 in CW mode.  I was most impressed
by the steep skirts of the dsp filter in the 990, it was set up as a high
cut or low cut filter and was really nice getting rid of and very effective
eliminating adjacent channel QRM.

Ragchew conditions, DSP9 experience, the most exciting feature, which would
also be applicable to contesting, is the "lid carrier null" feature.  The
CW tone is usually completely eliminated from the SSB voice trying to be
received.  Very big plus here!

With the DSP9, on CW with my IC740, in the 100 Hz position on the DSP9, it
is narrower (as expected) compared to my 250Hz internal filter, but not
much difference in ringing "noise".  My conclusion, narrower, but not a
whole lot better, maybe on skirts better, sensitivity not as good.

With the DSP9, on EME weak signals - Not even close to my ear by itself.
On EME I often find myself using "wide band" filtering and letting my "ear"
do all the work.  I can detect about an order of magnitude weaker signals
with my ear compared to the DSP9 in the circuit.

Conclusion - SSB gets rid of carriers great, SSB does reduce background
noise during ragchews - marginally improves understandability - background
noise reduction not very applicable in high QRM environment ie contesting,
CW best feature is sharp skirt cutoff as applied in the FT990, Not very
useful in TRUE weak signal applications.  Definitely better than most noise
blankers in HF rigs.

Another note - I have lately even partially abandoned using CW filters,
especially I find myself seldom using a 250Hz filter in contesting except
in specialized conditions.  One, my ear filters things "better" but more
importantly has faster "response" (does a mental shift to the signal of
interest faster than turning the knob...).  Notch or BPT seems more
appropriate.  The other reason is it seems most people forget how to zero
beat anyway ( :-) :-) :-) - Am I getting old and only a few of us know how
to operate anymore? ;-)

There's my comments, 73 de George, W1XE    email   georgen at redwood.stortek.com

-...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...-

From: Steve Merchant <merchant at crl.com>

Ed, I have used the JPS NIR-10 for awhile.  I don't think of it as much 
of an adjunct to contesting EXCEPT for digging out mults on SSB.  

It's slow to adjust -- far too slow for a run position.

Very good ssb performance.  Just average on cw (and no real dsp function 
on cw.)

Very good here -- often makes the difference between copying and not 
copying at all on ssb, esp. guys buried under a pileup with long-path 
flutter, etc.

I have only casually tried built-in dsp on TS950 -- wasn't impressed.

If you do any dxing in addition to contesting, one of these might be a 
worthwhile addition.  If all you're doing is contesting, then it might 
still be a good item to have, esp. if you're hard-core.

I'll be interested in your results.  73, Steve N4TQO (merchant at crl.com)

-...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...-

From: gliderking at aol.com

I really like my nir 10 it is very flexible to a variaty of situations and
outstanding in bringing cw sigs out of the noise. All three hams who came
to see it work bought one!  Drawback, takes a little fiddling to get used
to the switches to figure out what you want, when etc. Bottom line, it
works and is certainly cheaper than upgrading my icom 751a!  rick ve6gk

-...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...-

From: George Fremin III <geoiii at wixer.bga.com>

i own a jps nf-60 -- it is just a notch filter - i will never ever operate
40m ssb without it in line - ever.  now i just need build a switch so i can
switch it between radios - in the two radio set up - or better yet get my
station owner to buy one too.
the other filters i dont seem to have much use for - anyting that you have
to adjust is pretty mucha pain in a serious contest effort. the noise
reduction stuff is not very effective with weak signals and in a contest -
if they are loud then why do you need to mess with making them hifi
quality.  let me see - oh yeah - i have heard the the pulse type noise
reduction is pretty good - but again i think that using a filter to get rid
of that should only be a short term soultion - it needs to be fixed at the
George Fremin III

-...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...-

From: R. Dewan <rdewan at skew.kellogg.nwu.edu>

I have the W9GR unit.  It was described in Sept. 1992 QST.  I think
that J.Com sells a completed unit.

The J.Comm version is pretty easy to adjust.

My experience is limited to CW.
It is not terribly useful for weak signal CW - over and above the IF
filters that is.

I have a TS850 and for a month or so I used the Kenwood DSP 100.  It
does not do any significant audio filtering.  It uses DSP for 
digital modulation and demodulation.  The effect is not dramatic.

-...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...-

From: milewski at OREGON.UOREGON.EDU (Steve Milewski)

A friend of mine, AI7W recently bought a very interesting unit. Here's a
short comment from him:

  My DSP's model is the DSP-120, it's made by Digital Interactive
Signal Corp.. It has 8 programable filter memories and connects to
the parallel interface of a P.C. (386 with VGA or better). It provides
a real time audio spectrum display and a digital recording feature
as well as providing a number of ways to custom design filters. Sets
of 8 filter designs can be stored as files on the P.C. making it
possible to have an almost unlimited number of filters.


-...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...- -...-

>From H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil at seattleu.edu  Mon Jan 31 20:38:49 1994
From: H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil at seattleu.edu (H. Ward Silver)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 12:38:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: CT vs. ???
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9401311241.C25595-b100000 at bach>

I think the answer is "whoever gits there fustest with the mostest" ;-)
CT was such a cut above the other programs available at the time that it
became a de facto standard.  N6TR's software has a somewhat different
interface design and uses more intelligence.  NA is basically a close
variant of CT.

Yes, CT's upgrades tend to have more bugs than would be allowable in
commercial software.  However, given the limited resources available to
the programmers (repeat after me...it IS a hobby...) a less-than-complete
testing program is to be expected.  That said, I'm surprised that 8.52
went out with busted "check-partial", if true as reported...it's kind of a
major function.

My personal preference would be to have fewer upgrades with better testing
of each version.  The option to beta test new revisions could then be up
to the operator who would be more aware of the risks.  "never buy version
1.0 of anything if you're not willing to do some troubleshooting"

I see that N6TR version 4.10 accepts .CTY files now...good move.  In this
turbulent time, having one standard reference format for country/zone/etc
data is the right way to go.

73, Ward
hwardsil at seattleu.edu

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list