Re: [IRCA] [NRC-AM] RIP DX Tests (was: Re: Rackley on Synchronous AM Boosters)

[Les Rayburn <les@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Patrick,

Always good to hear your sage input with these types of discussions, my friend. 

These concerns were raised almost a decade ago when we first started the process. Our response then was simpleâif the station owner, chief engineer, or other person of authority authorizes the CPC Chairman to act as their âQSL Managerâ then those QSLâs carry the full weight and authority of the station. 

As you point out, this process is common in amateur radio circles. And several DXâers have acted as QSL Managers for individual stations for years. 

Given that the CPC Chairman often is a more reliable judge of valid reception than even a Chief Engineer might be (given their knowledge of distant reception) then I personally find these types of QSLâs to be very valid. 

As other have expressed. Ultimately, someone who cheats at a hobby activity, with no reward other than recognition of peers, then they cheat only themselves. 


73,

Les Rayburn, N1LF
121 Mayfair Park
Maylene, AL 
EM63nf

Member WTFDA, IRCA, NRC. Former CPC Chairman for NRC & IRCA. 

Elad FDM-S2 SDR, AirSpy SDR, Quantum Phaser, Wellbrook ALA1530 Loop, Wellbrook Flag, Clifton Labs Active Whip. 


> On Jan 7, 2017, at 2:44 PM, Patrick Martin <mwdxer1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Les,
> 
> I do like that idea. We have done that in the past with great results.
> My only question, if we did that on all DX Tests, are the QSL's the
> CPC puts out considered legit? I have always wondered about that. I do
> know that the Hams have had QSL Bureaus for years. There doesn't seem
> to be any issue with them. Too bad there isn't a DXer in most markets
> that could take over the duties of all QSLing AM or FM. That would
> sure change things a lot. But we do not have the resources for that.
> 
> Patrick
> 
> On 1/7/17, Les Rayburn <les@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> One approach that has been successful in the past is to have the CPC offer
>> to handle all verification and QSL duties on behalf of the station. This
>> proved to be very successful in obtaining DX Tests simply because it removed
>> the burden from the station.
>> 
>> We further would take the lead on producing test materials (CW Morse Code
>> IDâs, sweep tones, phonetic voice identifications, etc.) and providing that
>> as an MP3 file, or on a CD.
>> 
>> At the end of the test, the CPC would verify reception reports and send out
>> QSLâs. The station personnel received a detailed report showing all
>> receptions (often plotted on a map using Google Earth)
>> 
>> The CPC Chairman is often more familiar with DXing, and better able to judge
>> any questionable reception.
>> 
>> This approach allowed us to obtain DX Tests for a number of smaller
>> stations, with limited resources. Another tactic we employed as to produce
>> :60 long âTest Materialâ that could be run by a station during the overnight
>> hours at the TOH as their ID. No change in transmitter power, pattern,
>> etcâjust distinctive test material that could cut through clutter.
>> 
>> All that was required was for the station to insert the material into their
>> inventory. These often ran for weeks at a time during the overnight hours.
>> These too resulted in a lot of ânew onesâ going into the logs.
>> 
>> Iâm sure there are other innovative approaches that could be successful as
>> well. The key is to acknowledge that times change. We have to change our
>> tactics as hobbyists if we want to remain successful.
>> 
>> 
>> 73,
>> 
>> Les Rayburn, N1LF
>> 121 Mayfair Park
>> Maylene, AL
>> EM63nf
>> 
>> Member WTFDA, IRCA, NRC. Former CPC Chairman for NRC & IRCA.
>> 
>> Elad FDM-S2 SDR, AirSpy SDR, Quantum Phaser, Wellbrook ALA1530 Loop,
>> Wellbrook Flag, Clifton Labs Active Whip.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 7, 2017, at 2:21 PM, Patrick Martin <mwdxer1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Rick,
>>> 
>>> Anytime people could always cheat. There were reports from back in the
>>> 50s with faux reports. I like sending a cassette, reel to reel tape,
>>> or now CD of what I heard so the CE could tell the reception quality
>>> as well as it being accurate. But to give up totally on DX Tests
>>> because of of a faux report or two, it ruins it for the rest of us. I
>>> love catching the rare stations that could never be heard without a
>>> test. One issue we are having is the reluctance of station personnel
>>> to reply to any reports now. Even e mail replies are hard to obtain.
>>> Even though I get fewer QSLs these days, I still go after them. But DX
>>> Tests should still be viable in our hobby. We do not get many these
>>> days as stations do not sign off like they did. I still look forward
>>> to them when we get them.
>>> 
>>> Patrick
>>> 
>>> On 1/6/17, Rick Dau <drummer1965us@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Sorry, DXers of the world, but it's high time that DX tests be done away
>>>> with....
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Back in the day, some unscrupulous participants in the hobby made it a
>>>> practice of waiting about 2-3 weeks after tests were conducted, looking
>>>> through the pages of DX News, DX Monitor, and other print publications,
>>>> jotting down the details of what OTHERS were hearing, then sending their
>>>> own
>>>> faux reports based from those details off to the testing stations.  Very
>>>> often, engineers would happily mail back QSLs to the offenders, totally
>>>> unaware of what was going on.  Fortunately, a select few DID get wise to
>>>> the
>>>> shenanigans being perpetrated and then began conducting tests with the
>>>> caveat that reports had to be mailed within a scant few days (say, within
>>>> a
>>>> week or so) after the test, or they would simply not reply to the
>>>> report.
>>>> This was, in effect, to curtail the cheating.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> But with the progress of technology comes a downside.  Through
>>>> reflectors
>>>> such as these, along with message boards, DX chatrooms (WHEN they work),
>>>> and
>>>> other means of instant communication, the cheaters are once again seeing
>>>> the
>>>> information that others are posting without making their OWN efforts to
>>>> hear
>>>> the stations.   DX tests were fun while they lasted, but, IMHO, they need
>>>> to
>>>> be put down.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 73,
>>>> 
>>>> Rick Dau
>>>> 
>>>> South Omaha, Nebraska
>>>> 
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: ABDX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <ABDX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of
>>>> wghauser@xxxxxxxxx [ABDX] <ABDX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Sent: Friday, January 6, 2017 5:48 PM
>>>> To: ABDX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: [ABDX] Re: Rackley on Synchronous AM Boosters
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> To answer Todd`s question about anyone hearing KKOB Santa Fe, recently
>>>> in my reports and DXLD:
>>>> 
>>>> Also, I have repeatedly called for a DX test to be arranged on Santa Fe
>>>> only, turning off the main Albuquerque transmitter, however briefly
>>>> (without
>>>> of course, trying to set it up, myself; maybe I would if I still lived
>>>> in
>>>> ABQ) And now there is no CPC chairman. Glenn
>>>> 
>>>> __._,_.___
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> Posted by: wghauser@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> __,_._,___
>>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> The 37th edition of the AM Radio Log is now shipping!
>>> Info: http://www.nrcdxas.org
>>> 
>> 
>> 

_______________________________________________
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