[CQ-Contest] Handicap For Dirty Rigs

[Yan (XV4Y)]

Hi,

Yes, comparing against one rig is difficult, and we are lucky the top rig in the list is rather affordable.
What would it be if the Hilberling PT-8000A was blowing everything else.
One the other hand, a truly faire rule is rather complex to elaborate, and we have to keep in consideration what is economically and technically feasible at the given time.
I'm thinking of something in the same vein as (don't take the actual numbers in consideration) :
"Generated side noise no 20dB worst at 5KHz from the carrier than the 5 best transceivers costing no more than 3 times the monthly minimum wage".

That said, as you stated, the test equipment and measuring conditions are very important to give a meaning to the numbers... 

73,
Yan.
---
Yannick DEVOS - XV4Y
http://www.qscope.org/
http://xv4y.radioclub.asia/

Le 19 oct. 2014 à 09:41, cq-contest-request at contesting.com a écrit :

> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 01:06:23 -0000
> From: "Randy Thompson K5ZD" <k5zd at charter.net>
> To: <k9yc at arrl.net>,	<cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Handicap For Dirty Rigs
> Message-ID: <041901cfeb38$e6b066d0$b4113470$@charter.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
> 
> It is true that some rigs (depending on how they are operated) can produce
> signals that appear wider than normal.  Can you think of a way to express
> this in technical terms rather than using a K3 as a reference.  Contesting
> needs to have a dialog around what is the accepted standard for signal width
> or "cleanliness".  
> 
> What test equipment would some use to evaluate their own signal in the
> shack?
> 
> What would be a good test standard for someone listening to capture the
> essence of the signal quality?
> 
> 
> Randy, K5ZD