[CQ-Contest] Fwd: TX CW “splatter” - context -contests

dimitri cosson-dimitri at bbox.fr
Sun Jun 13 13:07:15 EDT 2021

Hi Rich,

I like the idea. Especially the "education campaign to teach new contesters how to set their equipment up to ensure a clean signal."  

And what do you think about campaign to teach some old top contesters/team to not use "a special setup" to generate a wide signal to keep a clear run frequency... (SSB and /or CW).

73 de Dimitri F4DSK

Le 12 juin 2021 à 07:27, à 07:27, Richard Smith <n6kt1 at sbcglobal.net> a écrit:
> Mike,
>I like the idea. Especially the "education campaign to teach new
>contesters how to set their equipment up to ensure a clean signal."  I
>would submit that any of us, new or experienced operator , could put
>together a station setup with unfamiliar equipment, and have something
>mis-adjusted or working incorrectly. We could accidently generate
>key-clicks, and it would be great to have an online resource that would
>help us walk through a troubleshooting process to eliminate the
>Sounds good!
>73, Rich, N6KT
>On Friday, June 11, 2021, 01:35:45 PM PDT, Michael Ritz
><w7vo at comcast.net> wrote:  
>I certainly noticed a LOT of issues with loud and wide key-clicks in
>the recent WPX CW contest. Some were as much as 2-3 kHz away from the
>Now, at the risk of getting flamed and knowing there are some that
>think the ARRL should keep their noses out of things, the Board's
>Programs and Services Committee (PSC) has recognized the
>transmitter/amplifier "cleanliness" problem, and is in the process of
>putting together a committee, that will include well-known subject
>matter experts, to develop an initiative to help with the situation.
>The initiative will be a combination of working with radio and
>amplifier manufacturers, and the contesting community, to set new
>transmit cleanliness standards, and have the ARRL Lab test and certify
>new gear to ensure compliance to these standards. Along with this is an
>education campaign to teach new contesters how to set their equipment
>up to ensure a clean signal. 
>In a way the ARRL Lab is already working on this. Reference the recent
>June issue of QST, and the "Lab Notes" side bar in the Yaesu FT-DX10
>review on page 45. Even though I haven't spoken with Ed Hare, W1RFI, in
>the lab yet, I was VERY glad to see that notation there. It shows that
>the fast CW rise time issue is recognized by the lab as an issue! The
>result was that the crew in the Lab worked with Yaesu change the CW
>rise-time default setting to something slower to minimize clicks. A
>step in the right direction!
>Now we need to take things to the next step and formalize it, along
>with other transmitter parameters.
>I expect this to get this committee formally kicked off after the July
>ARRL Board meeting. 
>(Fire suit on) - Comments?  
>> On 06/11/2021 9:42 AM PHILIP ALLARDICE via CQ-Contest
><cq-contest at contesting.com> wrote:
>> This post is my response to a thread on the Elecraft page, but it
>> to contesters. I am not a technical expert. Is it possible that “hot
>> of an amp” causes clicks? Or are there other drivers of CW spatter
>> from the well documented causes?  I am aware that some modern rigs 
>> have adjustable waveforms to reduce clicks.
>> It took restraint to not identify repeat offenders, some of whom are 
>> often near the top of the MM or SO listings.
>> Thanks and 73.
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> > From: PHILIP ALLARDICE <KT3Y at aol.com>
>> > Date: June 11, 2021 at 12:22:50 EDT
>> > To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>> > Subject: TX CW “splatter” - context -contests
>> > 
>> > I am using the term CW splatter to cover clicks, phase noise, IMD 
>> > and  other hallmarks of a wide signal.
>> >>> 
>> >>> To me, the graphs presented by K9YC are compelling.  It is clear
>that a 
>> >>> number of modern radios are significantly “dirtier” than others,
>while  a 
>> >>> TS590,  that currently costs under $1500 at DXE, looks quite
>clean. The 
>> >>> charts display TX spectrum images from mid range transceivers to 
>> >>> premium rigs (15 rigs total) such as the K3, Flex and others. 
>Take a 
>> >>> look at K9YC.com/TXnoise.pdf.
>> >>> 
>> >>> A dirty TX rig has much less impact on casual operating, or even
>> >>> Dxing, as the band isn’t usually crowded.  It is another story in
>a contest 
>> >>> as many offenders run HP with huge antennas. They are LOUD. I
>have had 
>> >>> to move many times when a loud, splattering CW signal parks a few
>> >>> KHZ away.
>> >>> 
>> >>> The cost of a clean TX is insignificant compared to such
>station’s antenna, 
>> >>> feedline and tower investment- plus all the other peripherals
>such a BPFs.
>> >>> 
>> >>> Anyone who operates contests has heard such signals many times.  
>> >>> It begs credulity that owners who are serious competitors aren’t
>> >>> of the issue. But it appears that little is done as most hams
>(including the 
>> >>> log checkers) are reluctant to press.  Rather than ignore the
>issue, radio
>> >>> manufacturers need to lose sales due to poor TX performance by
>> >>> voting with their dollars.  I am glad the ARRL now takes a more
>> >>> role in evaluating TX performance. 
>> >>> 
>> >>> I understand the argument that we need to encourage activity,
>> >>> from modest stations. I could not agree more, but in contests it
>is the loud
>> >>> stations with dirty signals -often using big antennas- that
>affect other 
>> >>> competitors adversely, not just those nearby. 
>> >>> 
>> >>> It is time to place as much emphasis on a clean TX as on
>> >>> receiver specs. Some manufacturers, including Elecraft, already
>> >>> 
>> >>> The CW splatter problem is noticeable  in EU and NA, sometimes
>> >>> from huge MM stations. I imagine that it occurs worldwide, but
>the Asians are 
>> >>> not generally that loud so their splatter is buried in the noise.
>> >>> 
>> >>> 73,
>> >>> Phil KT3Y- KP2M
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest at contesting.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list