[CQ-Contest] Fwd: 6M CW

[James Cain]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: James Cain <jamesdavidcain at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 12:29 PM
Subject: 6M CW
To: CQ-Contest Reflector <cq-contest at contesting.com>


I want to respond to something AB7E wrote. See "The only differences ..."

Yes my HF transceiver may use some digital signal processing. But alleging
that's no different from using FTx is *false equivalence*. It also smacks
of what's known as "both sides do it."

Paul, EI5DI, is right: "computer-to-computer" QSOs that remove the human
element -- the operator -- from the equation suck the very lifeblood from
our hobby.

I'm waiting for someone to weigh in with the argument that "Often you can
*hear* the signal that FTx is de-coding, you just can't copy it." This
reminds me of "list operations" that began appearing in the late 1970s:

"You are four by four."
"Roger the five by five."
"GOOD CONTACT!"

cain K1TN

You know that your rig is a full fledged computer running all sorts of DSP
signal enhancement software for all modes, including CW and SSB, right?
The incoming (and outgoing) signals are digitally sliced and diced beyond
all recognition, processed mathematically, then reassembled to look like
the analog signals you want to hear. The ONLY differences with FT8 is that
the computer is outboard of the rig (although it needn't be), the software
processing is more sophisticated, and the signals get transmitted before
they are converted back to look like an analog signal.  Although it hasn't
been done yet, FT8-type signals COULD even be converted back to CW or voice
in the receiver before you even knew they were there.

I think you are severely splitting hairs here.


As I have said many times, though, I think that WSJT-X does a poor job of
making the best use of modern signal processing by having such a stilted
interface, and I also think it is a mistake to include FT8/FT4 in contests
normally intended for other modes.  The style of operation is totally
different.

73,
Dave   AB7E



On 10/26/2022 7:47 AM, Paul O'Kane wrote:

On 25/10/2022 19:14, David Gilbert AB7E wrote:

<snip>


Calling FT8 an "existential threat to ham radio" is ludicrous no matter how
much you or I may dislike it. Anything that encourages lots of activity
like FT8 does is exactly the opposite.

Dave is right, insofar as anything that hams care to transmit, or cause to
be transmitted, on the ham bands may be described as ham radio, and insofar
as "lots of activity", regardless of how it's generated, is inherently good
in itself.

All the same, your computer talking to my computer over ham-band RF leaves
me cold.  And, yes, that includes RTTY.

73,

Paul EI5DI