[CQ-Contest] Readability of signals
luther at mail.mdt.net.au
Thu Dec 16 00:02:13 EST 1999
Recent posts have raised the issue of good readable signals.
I think this is becoming a neglected art. In the last few contests there
have been a number of signals that have poor audio. That doesn't mean they
necessarily have a fault, it is just that they are not as easy to read as
they could be.
On the other hand there are signals on the band that are clear, clean and
sound powerful. One such station last weekend proudly advertised he was
running 5 watts! He SOUNDED really loud, although he was a few s units down
on other stations who didn't sound loud.
I don't claim to be an expert on this so seek advise from others.
There is a clear competitive advantage to be gained by making your audio
firstly suit your particular voice and then to pack as much power into the
audio spectrum as is possible without overloading the transmitter. Just as
the ads on TV sound louder than the programme.
As a non expert morseophile I also seem to be able to read some signals
easier than others even when they send too fast for me. Others, however, are
very difficult. One K0 station was using a horrible Farnsworth type CW with
very fast characters and wide letter spacing it sounded horrible, very
choppy and difficult to read.
It seems to me that there is a "sound" to cw that is best. Probably related
to the rise and fall times of the dits and dahs. I am sure that the
weighting also affects the result, I just don't know how!.
Some small Farnsworth type increased spacing may give a result. I guess I
should pay attention to which signals are good and then ask them how they
are set up.
If anyone already has the answers as to how to make your SSB and CW signals
perfectly readable at all times please communicate the solution direct to me
(deserving) and don't tell anyone else (the undeserving)!
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest