[CQ-Contest] [Bulk] Check # in SS

V. Sidarau vs_otw at rogers.com
Sat Oct 10 21:19:51 EDT 2015

Yes, indeed. The topic is too serious not to stumble upon that eventually.

Regarding Phone:

Four is the worst followed by Eight,
Seven is the best followed by Five.

As for CW, 2,3,7 and 8 are the easiest to copy. The biggest problem is to
distinguish 9 from 0.




-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Joe
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 5:36 PM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: [Bulk] [CQ-Contest] Check # in SS

Now this is interesting.

I asked the below statement in another group. And did not get the answer I
was expecting for sure.  Lets see what I get here.

Not to start up the controversy again of using a "Real" check number, that's
been gone over on many sites, and the consensus seems to be that it doesn't
matter what number you use, just as long as you are consistent in using it.

So that leaves the thought. With everyone trying to shave milliseconds off
the exchange all the time,

What is the most efficient to use?

On CW now ignore "CUT" numbers, the shortest of course would be "55"
But would it also be the number that would be the easiest to understand, and
minimize the ask for repeats?

Now ever harder on Phone?
Same question,, what would be the shortest to actually vocalize?
And what would be the easiest to hear? Again to minimize the ask for
repeats. Or lack of possible confusion?
Plus, how about voicing fatigue?  What is easiest on the old voice-box so
the voice doesn't fail towards the end of the contest?

Has anyone done any studies on this?


CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list