More SO vs SOA

KR2J at KR2J at
Thu Jul 13 11:06:08 EDT 1995

In a message dated 95-07-13 08:42:41 EDT, you write:

>The problem with the inflationary process of SO becoming the 'snickered at /
>down at the heels / poor relation'  to high dollar, big gun SOA,  is that it
>places severe financial and location barriers in the way of the vast
>of contesters... 

As one who has operated SOA in the past, I must disagree with Denny's
analysis. I prefer it to SO simply because it's easier to get a higher score
and I really enjoy the technology integration aspect of it.  (I still prefer
M/M to both SO & SOA)

In my opinion, SO is still the top, most competetive, most difficult, most
noteworthy entry class.  SOA is the "easy" way to do single op.  Granted, you
can make a big effort in SOA, but it's just easier to produce more points
when you have outside input from others.  You no longer have to worry about
being on the right band, you seldom miss multipliers that get spotted
(assuming that your station works).  You can run, run, run and Alt-F4 (CT) to
pick up all the spots that come out.

I honestly believe that a good SO operator could do SOA and make a higher
score than he could as as SO.  This is assuming that he would stick to his
normal SO strategy and use packet to augment his multiplier total as well as
gaining more information to base band changes on etc.  Getting "lost" in
chasing packet spots the whole time is not what it's all about.  Using the
technology that is available for changing to packet spot frequencies for
mults can only enhance their score.  This is a new skill that must be
mastered before doing it effectively.

Nonetheless,  a winning SO score shows a great deal of individual, personal
effort, skill, and dedication that does not necessarily go with a SOA score.
 After all, others are helping you. (me)

Bob Naumann 
KR2J at

>From n0dh at (D.C. Henderson)  Thu Jul 13 15:27:05 1995
From: n0dh at (D.C. Henderson) (D.C. Henderson)
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 14:27:05 GMT
Subject: DSP Choices
Message-ID: <199507131427.OAA07431 at>

KW1K wrote:

:I would appreciate your reccomendation and/or opinion of the various models 
(of DSP)

I have owned the W9GR DSP-II and a Timewave DSP-59+. I far prefer the 
Timewave. One
feature in particualr I like about the Timewave is the audio AGC. It is 
amazing how 
much QSB this feature overcomes. In retrospect one of the biggest complaints I 
about my W9GR was the lack of dynamic range before overload occured, the AGC 
in the Timewave seems to have overcome this.


More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list