[CQ-Contest] Chiming in -- SO2R

[Art Boyars]

Having just finished my now-standard last-22-hours of the CW DX test at W3LPL, and seeing all the discussion going on here on the CQ-Contest Reflector (not subscribed; I read it on the Web), I feel like I have to get my opinions out there.  I'm starting with SO2R; more to follow.

Myself, I think that 2R should not be a separate class, but I can understand why others would disagree.   (An aside -- I wish we could keep the personal attacks off the Reflector; if you must get personal (but why must you???), make it private.)  The only valid rationale that I've seen is that 2R "doubles" the available listening time.

However, there is a flaw in that thinking: you are assuming that "two radios" means two transceivers.  Before SSCW 2004 I used separate TX and RX, without transceive.  (In one write-up, I joked that that was not what they meant by two radios.)  Many of you remember when that was all there was -- and when a computer would have cost more than all the radios in a M/M station.  Well, with separate TX and RX, all you need for listentening on another band while calling CQ or sending your report is a separate antenna, a CQ wheel (like W4KFC) or tape loop, and a little switching.  Just like SO2R, but with only one receiver.  Of course, you could set up a spare receiver just for listening, and bandswitch the main rig when you heard something good on the apare RX.  Or you could set up a whole second rig. And I'm sure many good op's did.  I have a vague memory of some people keeping one rig permanently on 40M for SSCW, and bandswitching the other rig.  And I don't think there was any consideration of making this a separate class.

So, then, the advantage of modern SO2R is in the increased agility that you get with modern transceivers and computer control (I remarked on that in my return to SS CW about four years ago; you could look it up).  You can still get part of the advantage with just a second non-computered receiver (wanna buy an old R-4B?), and I don't think we'd consider THAT to be a separate class.  From "spare RX" to modern SO2R there is pretty much a continuum, and, IMHO, there is no clear point at which the advantage merits a separate class.  Heck, it's just more hardware, and it's too hard to satisfy everybody with distinctions there.  And it's still one operator, showing amazing skills that are way beyond me (can anybody address the similarity with playing organ masterworks?).  

So, I'd like to know who is one-RX and who is 2-RX, but I'm willing to have them all in the same class.  But you may disagree (civilly).  And, if we have polite disagreement, let's settle it with some polite vote-taking.  Gee whiz, it IS just a hobby.

BTW, since the advantage of 2R is the increased listening time, perhaps anything else that gives you extra operating time should merit a separate class.  Like, say, the OT's who learned to send with their off-hand so they could send while writing the info in the log.  Or memory keyers, that let you do the same thing.  Or computer logging.  Or electronic keyers (didn't K5RC bring this one up a few years ago?).  Or straight keys -- let's make everybody send by pumping the handle of a monster knife switch immersed in oil.

Next on the docket -- "fixing" SS, and packet.

73, Art K3KU