[CQ-Contest] [Contest] 2020 June VHF Contest

it9blb at infcom.it it9blb at infcom.it
Wed Jun 10 02:49:53 EDT 2020

I support 101% Paul's suggestion.
IMHO ARRL is supporting FT8/4 in the worst possible way,
mixing apples with potatoes and ravaging any worth in
lot of HAM sections.
As many other people, I already skipped the rtty Roundup
for this exact reason and I will skip next June VHF Contest.
Subaudible modes must run separate from others in contests
and awards like DXCC MIXED and Single Band.
Thay're another story. Probably fantastic, probably the
future of HAM radio but, today, they are another story
and wrong mixing can get worse instead of better effects.

Just my two cents.
73, Joe IT9BLB

----- Messaggio originale -----
Da: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane at ei5di.com>
A: "CQ-Contest" <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Inviato: Mercoledì, 10 giugno 2020 0:28:14
Oggetto: Re: [CQ-Contest] [Contest] 2020 June VHF Contest

On 09/06/2020 22:23, Jim K9YC wrote:


> I see little difference between the attitude expressed in this post 
> and those who, in the '50s and '60s, refused to switch to that 
> new-fangled SSB.
> I also fail to see how FT8 differs from RTTY implemented by stations 
> using, for example, N1MM or WriteLog with multiple decoder windows in 
> which one simply clicks on a callsign to start an automated QSO and 
> clicks on the report to enter it into the log.
> Perhaps someone could explain the difference.

Jim is right - there is no significant difference.  As described, both 
FT8 and RTTY represent automated machine-decoded data modes. All the 
more reason, I suggest, to refrain from combining either with SSB/CW in 
individual contests.

Paul EI5DI

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

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list