Conditions, shmonditions: DXing anyway

[wayne burdick]

Tonight I heard a very weak CW CQ on 7.007 MHz right around sundown -- LA1MFA (Norway). With the filtering on the K3S dialed down to 100 Hz, 30 Hz audio peaking filter (APF) turned on, and the noise blanker optimized, he was readable. I called and he came right back to me.

I would normally have tried this at 10 watts first, but something about the tenuous nature of conditions these days had me cranking the power up to 100 W from the get-go.

Despite requiring "full" power to make this contact, it was a reminder that DX is out there if you tune slowly....

On a related topic, I discovered that as a guy of a certain age, 400 Hz may be a better pitch for copying weak signals than my usual 550 Hz. This could be a well-understood psychoacoustic phenomenon, but it came as a pleasant surprise.

73,
Wayne
N6KR


______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Jim Brown-10]

On 9/20/2018 8:07 PM, Wayne Burdick wrote:
> On a related topic, I discovered that as a guy of a certain age, 400 Hz may be a better pitch for copying weak signals than my usual 550 Hz. This could be a well-understood psychoacoustic phenomenon, but it came as a pleasant surprise.

The science behind this is that 1) human hearing is logarithmic, so our
ear/brain hears greater difference between signals at lower frequencies
(because the same difference in Hz is a greater percentage difference);
and 2) most (but not all) hearing loss is greater at higher frequencies.

BTW -- for those who don't know, psychoacoustics is the science of how
humans perceive sound. It includes speech intelligibility, how we hear
music, the effects of noise, echoes, and reverberation, how we perceive
directionality of a sound source, and so on.

73, Jim K9YC

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Elecraft mailing list]

On a related tack, I am often surprised at how high the radio volume has
become in the club shack.  On turning it down, it is quite a relief on the
ears and yet perception of the signal we are listening to improves.  It is
also significant that a separate loudspeaker on a shelf being more in line
with our ears provides significant improvement in our ability to "hear" the
station.  Louder is not better.

David G3UNA

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Wayne Burdick
Sent: 21 September 2018 04:07
To: Elecraft Reflector
Subject: [Elecraft] Conditions, shmonditions: DXing anyway

Tonight I heard a very weak CW CQ on 7.007 MHz right around sundown --
LA1MFA (Norway). With the filtering on the K3S dialed down to 100 Hz, 30 Hz
audio peaking filter (APF) turned on, and the noise blanker optimized, he
was readable. I called and he came right back to me.

I would normally have tried this at 10 watts first, but something about the
tenuous nature of conditions these days had me cranking the power up to 100
W from the get-go.

Despite requiring "full" power to make this contact, it was a reminder that
DX is out there if you tune slowly....

On a related topic, I discovered that as a guy of a certain age, 400 Hz may
be a better pitch for copying weak signals than my usual 550 Hz. This could
be a well-understood psychoacoustic phenomenon, but it came as a pleasant
surprise.

73,
Wayne
N6KR


______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message
delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Jim Brown-10]

On 9/21/2018 12:22 AM, David Cutter via Elecraft wrote:
> On a related tack, I am often surprised at how high the radio volume has
> become in the club shack. On turning it down, it is quite a relief on the
> ears and yet perception of the signal we are listening to improves.
Two possible reasons. First, if a radio has a relatively low power audio
output stage, higher sound levels are more likely to drive it into
distortion. Loudspeakers, especially cheaper ones, also distort more at
higher power levels.  Second, reverberation and echoes are "noise" as
far as speech intelligibility is concerned; while that IS a linear
ratio, human hearing is not, so reducing the level may bring those
echoes/reverb down to a level where it is less perceived.
>   It is also significant that a separate loudspeaker on a shelf being more in line with our ears provides significant improvement in our ability to "hear" the station.

Exactly right, and that is ENTIRELY the result of 1) loudspeaker
directivity -- lows are more omni-directional from nearly all
loudspeakers, while the highs becomes increasing directional. [This is
due to wavelength of the sounds as compared to the size of the
loudspeaker diaphragm.] When we and the loudspeaker are facing each
other, we're getting both highs and lows. When the speaker is turned
away from you,  we hear the lows but not the highs, AND those highs
spray to whatever surface they face, and bounce around to create echoes.

2) The higher speech  frequencies are most responsible for speech
intelligibility, lows provide almost none.

>   Louder is not better.

Louder is only one part it.

73, Jim K9YC

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Petr, OK1RP/M0SIS]

Hi Wayne,

thanks for nice example. Definitely agree.

I am using the pitch set to 360Hz for long time and it is the best result
for myself... after long time testing and experimenting with my K3.

The 250Hz roofing with the "filtering on the K3 dialed down to 100-150Hz and
30Hz audio peaking filter (APF) turned on as same as the noise blanker
optimized" is the standard setup which I am using for daily operation on CW
and it is famous for DX hunting as same as for rag-chews.

The only think I have on K3 f/w if it is possible to implement the
"automatic fine tuning 1Hz rate" option while the APF is on as it is already in
KX3.

Thanks for all of the nice CW features on your machines Wayne!




-----
73 - Petr, OK1RP
"Apple & Elecraft freak"
B:http://ok1rp.blogspot.com
G+:http://goo.gl/w3u2s9
G+: http://goo.gl/gP99xq
--
Sent from: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[e-mail]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [e-mail]

[Drew AF2Z]

I generally use 440 Hz for sidetone/pitch, thinking that it is a
familiar standard musical note and perhaps is more recognizable to the
brain in some way. I don't know if that has any validity or not...

One thing I would dearly like to have is the ability to listen to the
actual signal as I am changing PITCH. Unfortunately, as it is now, when
PITCH is turned on the received signals are covered by the steady tone.
That makes it not very easy to find the optimum pitch for a signal under
current conditions.

73,
Drew
AF2Z



On 09/20/18 23:07, Wayne Burdick wrote:

> Tonight I heard a very weak CW CQ on 7.007 MHz right around sundown -- LA1MFA (Norway). With the filtering on the K3S dialed down to 100 Hz, 30 Hz audio peaking filter (APF) turned on, and the noise blanker optimized, he was readable. I called and he came right back to me.
>
> I would normally have tried this at 10 watts first, but something about the tenuous nature of conditions these days had me cranking the power up to 100 W from the get-go.
>
> Despite requiring "full" power to make this contact, it was a reminder that DX is out there if you tune slowly....
>
> On a related topic, I discovered that as a guy of a certain age, 400 Hz may be a better pitch for copying weak signals than my usual 550 Hz. This could be a well-understood psychoacoustic phenomenon, but it came as a pleasant surprise.
>
> 73,
> Wayne
> N6KR
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Barry K3NDM]

Wayne,
     Nice going! What were you using for an antenna?

73,
Barry
K3NDM

On September 20, 2018 11:07:01 PM EDT, Wayne Burdick <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Tonight I heard a very weak CW CQ on 7.007 MHz right around sundown --
>LA1MFA (Norway). With the filtering on the K3S dialed down to 100 Hz,
>30 Hz audio peaking filter (APF) turned on, and the noise blanker
>optimized, he was readable. I called and he came right back to me.
>
>I would normally have tried this at 10 watts first, but something about
>the tenuous nature of conditions these days had me cranking the power
>up to 100 W from the get-go.
>
>Despite requiring "full" power to make this contact, it was a reminder
>that DX is out there if you tune slowly....
>
>On a related topic, I discovered that as a guy of a certain age, 400 Hz
>may be a better pitch for copying weak signals than my usual 550 Hz.
>This could be a well-understood psychoacoustic phenomenon, but it came
>as a pleasant surprise.
>
>73,
>Wayne
>N6KR
>
>
>______________________________________________________________
>Elecraft mailing list
>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
>This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>Message delivered to [hidden email]

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Elecraft mailing list]

On Fri, 9/21/18, Drew AF2Z <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I generally use 440 Hz for sidetone/pitch, thinking that it is a familiar standard musical note and perhaps is more recognizable to the
> brain in some way.  I don't know if that has any validity or not...

I've been using a sidetone pitch of 800 Hz on my K2/100 for years, but more recently thought I might prefer something a bit lower.

Running alongside a Drake R4C receiver, I've been experimenting with a homebrew CW transmitter over the past month that includes a sidetone oscillator.  I adjusted the pitch of the sidetone for something that "sounded about right" to my ears and left it at that.

Last weekend I decided to measure the frequency of the sidetone and found it was within 1 Hz of 800!

I suppose I've been listening to CW at 800 Hz for so long, I just committed the pitch it to memory.  :-)


73 de John, KD2BD
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[k6dgw]

This probably is related to the commercial CW operators trick of laying
the phones down on the desk to copy a weak ship station through noise. 
It really does work. Unfortunately, today's over-the-ear headphones tend
to stick together rather than laying flat on the desk as the old "cans"
did, but it still works.  Tailoring the K3 RX equalizer for your ears
and headphones/speaker is well worth some time and effort too, even on
CW with narrow bandwidths.  You just have to go slowly and evaluate each
setting before changing anything.

In SE Asia in the mid 60's, we used 11.5 KVA 400 Hz turbine generators. 
The primary reason was weight.  A 10 KVA  60 Hz diesel MB-5 was
trailer-mounted and weighed about 3,500 lbs [1,600 kg].  Two troops
could carry the turbine units, and of course, the 400 Hz power supplies
were correspondingly lighter too.  A side benefit was that the high
frequency whine of the turbines, running at around 9,000 RPM, was very
easy to muffle with a few sandbags [generators were small].  The low
frequency rumble from the 60 Hz generators was essentially impossible to
suppress.

High frequencies seem to come forward, straight off a speaker and with
compromised hearing, I lose intelligibility if I move off to the side. 
If I am having a hard time understanding you, speaking louder won't help
much, speaking directly at me usually will.

73,

Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
Sparks NV DM09dn
Washoe County

On 9/21/2018 1:03 AM, Jim Brown wrote:

> On 9/21/2018 12:22 AM, David Cutter via Elecraft wrote:
>> On a related tack, I am often surprised at how high the radio volume has
>> become in the club shack. On turning it down, it is quite a relief on
>> the
>> ears and yet perception of the signal we are listening to improves.
> Two possible reasons. First, if a radio has a relatively low power
> audio output stage, higher sound levels are more likely to drive it
> into distortion. Loudspeakers, especially cheaper ones, also distort
> more at higher power levels.  Second, reverberation and echoes are
> "noise" as far as speech intelligibility is concerned; while that IS a
> linear ratio, human hearing is not, so reducing the level may bring
> those echoes/reverb down to a level where it is less perceived.
>>   It is also significant that a separate loudspeaker on a shelf being
>> more in line with our ears provides significant improvement in our
>> ability to "hear" the station.
>
> Exactly right, and that is ENTIRELY the result of 1) loudspeaker
> directivity -- lows are more omni-directional from nearly all
> loudspeakers, while the highs becomes increasing directional. [This is
> due to wavelength of the sounds as compared to the size of the
> loudspeaker diaphragm.] When we and the loudspeaker are facing each
> other, we're getting both highs and lows. When the speaker is turned
> away from you,  we hear the lows but not the highs, AND those highs
> spray to whatever surface they face, and bounce around to create echoes.
>
> 2) The higher speech  frequencies are most responsible for speech
> intelligibility, lows provide almost none.
>
>>   Louder is not better.
>
> Louder is only one part it.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[wayne burdick]

90 foot off-center-fed dipole with the apex at about 25 feet. One end slopes to 15' high gazebo roof, the other immediately gets tangled up in a large oak tree.

Could be worse, but not much :)

Wayne
N6KR

> On Sep 21, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Barry <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Wayne,
> Nice going! What were you using for an antenna?
>
> 73,
> Barry
> K3NDM
>
> On September 20, 2018 11:07:01 PM EDT, Wayne Burdick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Tonight I heard a very weak CW CQ on 7.007 MHz right around sundown -- LA1MFA (Norway). With the filtering on the K3S dialed down to 100 Hz, 30 Hz audio peaking filter (APF) turned on, and the noise blanker optimized, he was readable. I called and he came right back to me.
>
> I would normally have tried this at 10 watts first, but something about the tenuous nature of conditions these days had me cranking the power up to 100 W from the get-go.
>
> Despite requiring "full" power to make this contact, it was a reminder that DX is out there if you tune slowly....
>
> On a related topic, I discovered that as a guy of a certain age, 400 Hz may be a better pitch for copying weak signals than my usual 550 Hz. This could be a well-understood psychoacoustic phenomenon, but it came as a pleasant surprise.
>
> 73,
> Wayne
> N6KR

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Barry K3NDM]

Wayne,
     Thanks. You are doing what I've advocated for a long time, don't get
fancy just put up some wire and it will work. I hope new hams take note
of what you are doing. :-)

73,
Barry
K3NDM

------ Original Message ------
From: "Fred Jensen" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: 9/21/2018 1:17:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Conditions, shmonditions: DXing anyway

>This probably is related to the commercial CW operators trick of laying
>the phones down on the desk to copy a weak ship station through noise.  
>It really does work. Unfortunately, today's over-the-ear headphones
>tend to stick together rather than laying flat on the desk as the old
>"cans" did, but it still works.  Tailoring the K3 RX equalizer for your
>ears and headphones/speaker is well worth some time and effort too,
>even on CW with narrow bandwidths.  You just have to go slowly and
>evaluate each setting before changing anything.
>
>In SE Asia in the mid 60's, we used 11.5 KVA 400 Hz turbine generators.
>  The primary reason was weight.  A 10 KVA  60 Hz diesel MB-5 was
>trailer-mounted and weighed about 3,500 lbs [1,600 kg].  Two troops
>could carry the turbine units, and of course, the 400 Hz power supplies
>were correspondingly lighter too.  A side benefit was that the high
>frequency whine of the turbines, running at around 9,000 RPM, was very
>easy to muffle with a few sandbags [generators were small].  The low
>frequency rumble from the 60 Hz generators was essentially impossible
>to suppress.
>
>High frequencies seem to come forward, straight off a speaker and with
>compromised hearing, I lose intelligibility if I move off to the side.  
>If I am having a hard time understanding you, speaking louder won't
>help much, speaking directly at me usually will.
>
>73,
>
>Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
>Sparks NV DM09dn
>Washoe County
>
>On 9/21/2018 1:03 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
>>On 9/21/2018 12:22 AM, David Cutter via Elecraft wrote:
>>>On a related tack, I am often surprised at how high the radio volume
>>>has
>>>become in the club shack. On turning it down, it is quite a relief on
>>>the
>>>ears and yet perception of the signal we are listening to improves.
>>Two possible reasons. First, if a radio has a relatively low power
>>audio output stage, higher sound levels are more likely to drive it
>>into distortion. Loudspeakers, especially cheaper ones, also distort
>>more at higher power levels.  Second, reverberation and echoes are
>>"noise" as far as speech intelligibility is concerned; while that IS a
>>linear ratio, human hearing is not, so reducing the level may bring
>>those echoes/reverb down to a level where it is less perceived.
>>>   It is also significant that a separate loudspeaker on a shelf being
>>>more in line with our ears provides significant improvement in our
>>>ability to "hear" the station.
>>
>>Exactly right, and that is ENTIRELY the result of 1) loudspeaker
>>directivity -- lows are more omni-directional from nearly all
>>loudspeakers, while the highs becomes increasing directional. [This is
>>due to wavelength of the sounds as compared to the size of the
>>loudspeaker diaphragm.] When we and the loudspeaker are facing each
>>other, we're getting both highs and lows. When the speaker is turned
>>away from you,  we hear the lows but not the highs, AND those highs
>>spray to whatever surface they face, and bounce around to create
>>echoes.
>>
>>2) The higher speech  frequencies are most responsible for speech
>>intelligibility, lows provide almost none.
>>
>>>   Louder is not better.
>>
>>Louder is only one part it.
>>
>>73, Jim K9YC
>
>______________________________________________________________
>Elecraft mailing list
>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
>This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>Message delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Bob Nielsen-4]

I'm probably a bit psycho at times and studied acoustics in college over
50 years ago.  Now I need to figure out how to combine the two.

73, Bob N7XY


On 9/20/18 8:07 PM, Wayne Burdick wrote:
> On a related topic, I discovered that as a guy of a certain age, 400 Hz may be a better pitch for copying weak signals than my usual 550 Hz. This could be a well-understood psychoacoustic phenomenon, but it came as a pleasant surprise.
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]