Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
3599 kc's
On Nov 25, 7:39*am, Michael Coslo wrote:
Nobody wrote: You are so right about the canned qso's. *I have found that a boatanchor transmitter is the best ice breaker for getting a rag chew going. *Now if we could just get DX stations to carry on a qso of more than 15 seconds... A side comment - as bad as some canned cw qso's are, PSK-31 is much worse. *I stopped using PSK-31 when I finally go around to configuring my PSK-31 software and realized my qso was reduced to clicking three different buttons. Doesn't your keyboard work? I have macros for a couple things, like CQ, and manually type most of my other stuff. No one is making you use the macros. * * * * And the comment is specious anyhow. If PSK31 is so bad because of these clicks you seemed to be forced into using, then why do CW Ops end out such shorthand instead of spelling out the entire word? When I was first learning Morse, I kept thinking that I was not copying correctly. It wasn't until I asked around *to more experienced ops that I found out the shorthand to CW operating. Modern day Morse comms were the original L33T! gd om tu de n3li My keyboard works just fine. There is absolutely nothing wrong with shorthand, either via cw abreviations of PSK 31 canned responses. The Q signals were the 1st form of canned messages. What I observed with PSK31 was 1. most PSK31 ops tended to fall into the "3 click" qso mode after a few months of operating and 2. more PSK-31 ops than CW ops tended to go for the rst/qth... type qso rather than rag chewing. Numerous attempts to get PSK31 ops to go beyond the "3 click" qso failed. In addition, several ops became impatient with my insisting on typing out my responses. (BTW I type well over 45wpm so it is not a speed thing per say). This lead me to investigate the canned response type qso to see what the attraction was. Perhaps you might want to review a few of the late 60's QST and CQ magazine editorials that brought up the same observations with regard to RTTY. Only the names change, the observations remain the same. Tim AA6DQ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
3599 kc's
Nobody wrote:
Perhaps you might want to review a few of the late 60's QST and CQ magazine editorials that brought up the same observations with regard to RTTY. Only the names change, the observations remain the same. The argument is valid for all modes, including even SSB. "You're five and nine OM." "Please repeat." "You're five and nine. "I don't copy, can you repeat that?" "I said you were five and nine." "Oh, yeah. You're five and nine too." "What did you say? I missed that." --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|