Re: [IRCA] [NRC-AM] QRSS: A idea for future DX Tests.....

[Russ Edmunds <wb2bjh@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Les Rayburn <les@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Russ's point is valid, of course---but I think also short sighted.
> Facing
> the challenge of IBOC, crowded channels, and great distances we must
> adopt new techniques if the hobby is going to continue. 
> 
> Amateur radio DX'ers typically go to much greater lengths than
> medium wave DX'ers in attempting to put new ones into the log.  The
technique that Brandon is endorsing uses freeware that is easy
> to set up and use. Requires minimal computer power and inexpensive
> sound cards, and only fairly accurate receivers. Can you pull this
> off 
>> with a DX-398 at your bedside? No...but it's certainly an option
that
> is inexpensive and technically unchallenging. Most DX'ers don't use
> phasers, but that doesn't mean that no one should use them. 
> 
> And I'm not aware of any other technique that might make it possible
> for DX'ers in California to log Vermont or Rhode Island. At the end
> of the day, the question is "how bad do you want the logging?" If you
> want it bad enough then you spend the money, and learn the technique.
> 
> 
> We could still include the traditional elements of the DX Test,
> including
> sweep tones, Morse and voice IDs...but if time permits, I think
> including
> QRSS during a portion of the test makes a lot of sense. 
> 
> I'm experimenting with the WinMorse software and Sound Forge now to
> figure out an easy way to generate the .wav or .mp3 files that would
> be required. 
> 
> Let's move this hobby into the 21st century and instead of resisting
> new
> techniques, let's encourage experimentation and development. Any
> station
> owners or broadcasters out there who might be willing to try this
> during
> your next maintenance period? It would require about a two hour
> commitment
> to demonstrate "proof of concept". 
> 
>


*** I am not anti-progress, nor am I opposed to this approach -- but I
also don't want to do something which would further marginalize some of
the DX community in the process because we need as many as we can
retain.

I have no problem with this as an additional inclusion, but I would
have a problem with replacing the 5 wpm or whatever code which is used
in WinMorse. You've indicated the answer to that above. As I've
indicated, I've looked into some of the software out there and found it
to be more complex than I could handle. It's sort of like giving
someone Cool Edit 2000 as their first audio software. It's an excellent
program, but not likely operable by someone without some experience
with other audio softwares -- too many obscure features.








Russ Edmunds
Blue Bell, PA ( 360' ASL )
[15 mi NNW of Philadelphia]
40:08:45N; 75:16:04W, Grid FN20id
<wb2bjh@xxxxxxxxx>
FM: Yamaha T-80 & Onkyo T-450RDS w/ APS9B @15'
AM: Hammarlund HQ-150 & 4' FET air core loop


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get your own web address.  
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca

Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers

For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org

To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx