[CQ-Contest] Zero Beat ? Not everybody does !

[K9MA]

As I recall, the minimum N1MM offset was greater than the 50 Hz or so I 
prefer. I use the XIT instead.

73,
Scott K9MA

On 12/9/2025 4:27 PM, Steve Dyer W1SRD via CQ-Contest wrote:
> N1MM set a random offset amount for clicked spots to try and help 
> avoid the zero beat pile up phenom.
> Also a good reason to add {CLEARRIT} to a RUN and S&P macro to make 
> sure RX/TX RIT are reset to zero.
>
> 73,
> Steve
> W1SRD
>
> On 12/9/2025 12:17, K9MA wrote:
>> I noticed the same thing a few times. Unless one changes frequency 
>> while running, the spots shouldn't be all that far off. I notice that 
>> sometimes they are when I click on them, but that may be because of a 
>> QSY. That's pretty common when running, when an adjacent station 
>> moves in.  I suspect some callers are using wider bandwidths, but 
>> don't have a sense of matching the beat notes. Musicians call that 
>> "tone deafness", and some operators no doubt have it.
>>
>> A more frequent problem is when everyone is exactly zero beat with 
>> each other. Sometimes the spots are TOO accurate!
>>
>> BTW, Bob's experience illustrates the dramatic difference in skirt 
>> selectivity between the IC-7610 and the K4. The K4 has such poor 
>> skirts that you can hear stations several hundred Hz from the center, 
>> even with a 300-400 Hz bandwidth. At 400 Hz BW, the IC-7610 is 60 dB 
>> down 270 Hz from the center, while the K4 is only 18 dB down. I know, 
>> some prefer the softer skirts, but I don't. Anyway, the IC-7610 has a 
>> softer option. Alas, for other reasons I prefer the K4, but I sure 
>> wish it had filtering like the IC-7610.
>>
>> 73,
>> Scott K9MA
>>
>>
>> On 12/9/2025 12:25 PM, w2xl at twc.com wrote:
>>>
>>>     I participated in the ARRL 160 this past weekend. Conditions were
>>> pretty bad and I didn't hit it real hard, mostly I ran. 25% or more of
>>> my contacts were far (really far!) from zero beat. This seems to be
>>> getting worse and some of the offenders are well known calls. Many
>>> times the calls were far off my Freq. , some more than 500 - 1000 Hz.
>>> and out of my passband. Some of these callers were strong enuf that I
>>> would have got them on the first call if they were a little closer
>>> close to zero beat. The only way I found some of them was I noticed
>>> pips on my IC-7610 band scope that were out of my passband, but in
>>> sync with my calling CQ or QRZ and I used the RIT to tune way off
>>> Freq. to pull them in. I normally run 200 - 300 Hz bandwidth but I had
>>> to open it to 450 Hz to hear a lot of these calls.
>>>   I think there are several reasons for this: 1. Stations click on
>>> packet spots that are not exactly the frequency that I am on , they
>>> hear me OK but don't bother to tune me in better. 2. Listening to a
>>> beat note that is not what their RX is set for. (which sets the exact
>>> TX freq.) 3. Wide CW Filter or CW filter setting (which can cause 1 &
>>> 2) 4. Using the logging software to set a TX offset to break pile ups
>>> that is too far from normal for S & P use. (I think 100 - 200Hz should
>>> be more that enuf for S & P)
>>>   So I would ask that everyone check out the factors I have mentioned
>>> and try to get close to zero beat when doing S & P  73 MX & HNY Bob
>>> W2XL
>>>   PS: This is my first post to CQ Contest after abt 57 years of
>>> Contesting ! MX & HNY !
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest


-- 
Scott  K9MA

k9ma at sdellington.us