[SECC] improving 160 results

[Tommy Alderman]

Interesting! I am in full agreement with your observation about analog
equipment.

Recently I posted, in response to Jeff's question about rig's, that I had
removed my K3 from my operating position because it was too 'noisy'. I think
either a minute before or maybe a minute after, I read your post about how
good you think the K3 receiver is. Which made me go back and re-check my K3
setup and in fact by reconfiguring the K3, it was now very quiet although I
still have a horrible audio pop on key-up when using my Alpha 8410 at full
power. So my K3 has again replaced my IC-7700, but unfortunately I am still
not completely happy with either radio. Regardless of the Sherwood and the
ARRL Lab test lab measurements about various radios, I don't believe the
full effectiveness of a ham's radio can be determined ONLY by test
measurements? I would have to say that operator-perception has a lot to do
with it? 

I know that for years you have basically used your much modified Drake
radios as a basic 'standard' for your own use at your station. My situation
is somewhat similar but of course on a much lesser scale, in that "my"
standard radio is a Ten Tec Omni 6 Plus with the Inrad 600 hz roofing
filter. I try my best to NOT become a ham radio manufacturer 'cult member',
rather select and use a radio that seems to work for me, a la, your modified
Drake receiver. Up until the production of Ten Tec's (awful, meaning
firmware support) Orion radio, there was something intangible about Ten
Tec's analog radio AGC design in that, to me, their AGC designs handled
atmospheric noise crashes (lightning, etc.) in what I considered to be
excellent fashion and their full QSK designs really did work.

Even with both my IC-7700 and my K3 now working very good, there still seems
to be 'something' missing from both of those radios. In fact I intend to
soon put my Omni 6 Plus back on the desk and get a current comparison
between the three radios, especially for contesting. It will be very
interesting to hear what you learn if you re-try one of your older analog
radios!

73,
Tom - W4BQF



-----Original Message-----
From: secc-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:secc-bounces at contesting.com] On
Behalf Of Tom W8JI
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 3:23 PM
To: SECC List
Subject: [SECC] improving 160 results

I think I have lost my edge over the east coast. Part of this is my fault 
for sharing things that helped my receiving.  :-)

 It used to be the east coast always won. When Bill Fisher and John first 
came here there was a big battle between K1ZM and W2GD. We got right in the 
middle of it and came in a close second out of nowhere. That totally shocked

the New England stations who thought the world revolves around the NE USA 
and 160 DX. Prior to that no one ever thought a SE station that was inland 
could ever win.

After some improvements we would always win, but now it seems it has changed

back.  Some of it is probably things falling apart here, in concert with 
improved systems up northeast. Some of it is probably gear the ops are not 
used to, and I am starting to think digital detection and AGC hurts really 
weak signals. I still seem to do better with really weak signals using a 
more conventional AGC and detector system like the old Yaesu's and R4C's and

stuff uses instead of the full DSP radios out today.

I'm thinking a little of this and a little of that have made it tough for us

to get out of second place compared to the east coast.

I'd like to change that.

The best option would be to move to the Georgia coast and have a saltwater 
path to Europe, but I'm too old for that stuff. So I guess I need better 
receiving antennas and try to get back to analog detection and AGC systems 
in my receivers.

Or am I expecting too much?? Maybe the extra QRM (aka "activity") now is 
what is really killing us? I think it is all about receiving.

73 Tom 

_______________________________________________
SECC mailing list
SECC at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/secc