[CQ-Contest] Impressive demonstration of one dB of signal strength improvement
w2up at comcast.net
Thu Aug 22 17:55:25 EDT 2019
Regardless of speed, it always seems the fade/QRN is synchronized with
the callsign and you miss the same letters each time :-)
On 8/22/2019 8:27 AM, rjairam at gmail.com wrote:
> I always thought speed was dependent on the length of fades and type of
> burst noise.
> Faster would attempt to catch short fades whereas slower would catch longer
> fades but weak S/N?
> On topband my strategy is around 20wpm and sometimes slower repeats. On
> higher bands I would go as fast as I can (which isn’t very fast) and then
> slow down for weak signals or ops who have trouble.
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 7:38 PM Bernie McClenny, W3UR <bernie at dailydx.com>
>> For me, and I suspect for many other Topband ops, when QRN/QRM is involved
>> slower is better than faster! 18-20 WPM is about the right speed.
>> Bernie McClenny, W3UR
>> Editor of: The Daily DX (1997-2019)
>> The Weekly DX (2001-2019)
>> How's DX? (1999-2019)
>> Two week trial -
>>> On Aug 21, 2019, at 4:26 PM, Bob Shohet, KQ2M <kq2m at kq2m.com> wrote:
>>> I have never had the opportunity before to hear differences in signal
>> strength by 1 db increments. +1 db is clearly an advantage and a +2 db
>> difference nearly obliterates the weaker signal. Remarkable. I wish I had
>> heard this 20 years ago! ;-)
>>> The differences in copy between different CW speeds is very interesting
>> too. I suspect that most contest ops will generally do better with the
>> higher speeds unless they are exhausted to the point of mental impairment,
>> in which case the slower speeds might work better.
>>> Thanks for posting this Frank and a special thanks to AB7E for creating
>> these audio recordings with explanations!
>>> Bob, KQ2M
>>> From: donovanf at starpower.net
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 11:15 AM
>>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Impressive demonstration of one dB of signal
>> strength improvement
>>> These recordings are an impressive demonstration of the benefit of
>>> one dB of signal strength improvement in a weak signal situation.
>>> Click on the links on this website:
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "David Gilbert" <xdavid at cis-broadband.com>
>>> To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 7:02:21 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KPA500 Coax size requirements
>>> That's not a universally true statement.
>>> Several years ago I was trying to decide which antenna to buy, and my
>>> choice came down to two antennas that were 2 db apart. I created some
>>> audio files by recording typical band noise and then overlaying them
>>> with recorded CW messages at various strengths. The difference between
>>> 1 dB above the noise level and 2 dB above the noise level can make the
>>> difference between no copy and copy. The files and testing methodology
>>> can be found here:
>>> If you're ragchewing it doesn't matter, but if you're trying to make a
>>> contact and your signal is at the level of the mud it does.
>>> Dave AB7E
>>> On 8/20/2019 9:18 PM, Jim Danehy wrote:
>>>> ONE DB loss is the LEAST DETECTABLE amount a human can detect. Hardly
>> if not impossible to notice.
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest