Elecraft

Interesting QSO

Classic

List

Threaded

27 messages Options

Frank Krozel

Re: Copying CW and Pitch

______________________________________________________________
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

Re: Copying CW and Pitch

In reply to this post by KE8G-2

Interesting comments.

In the late 1960’s the late Harvey Hetland (WA6KZI/N6MM) told me exactly the same thing: a lower tone was better for copying CW. For a long time I was at 450-500, now that I am in my 70’s I am down around 400-420. I guess Harvey was right way back then.

Kim - K7IM

Sent from my iPad

> On Mar 15, 2021, at 07:47, KE8G <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Yes, I agree!
>
> I had brought up the same subject in the CWops Group a while back and found
> the same thing. When I started out in ham radio 40+ years ago, my CW
> sidetone was around 700-750 Hz, a very nice sweet spot. As I grew older,
> the sidetone frequency has been decreasing. Now at 70 years old, I am at
> 420 Hz and that's the new sweet spot.
>
> I did an unscientific study by operating the Wednesday CWTs at different
> sidetone frequencies, just to see if there was a difference. Believe me,
> there was! As I increased the frequency, my effectiveness of hearing the
> CW signals and separating them decreased. I finally stopped at 700 Hz, as
> I was convinced that my hearing had changed and the lower frequency was
> definitely better for my ears.
>
> 73 de Jim - KE8G
>
>> On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 7:13 PM Chris R. NW6V <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 5:45 PM Jim Brown <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2021 10:48 AM, Sverre Holm (LA3ZA) wrote:
>>>> A CW sidetone pitch of 400 Hz is consistent with what little research
>>> there
>>>> is on this. A paper from 1992 says that "/All subjects improved their
>>>> recognition as the frequency was lowered to 500 Hz, some even at 250
>> Hz.
>>> As a retired designer of large sound systems, I had to learn a lot about
>>> acoustics and psychoacoustics (the science of how humans' ear/brain
>>> interprets what we hear). That science tells us that, like most of our
>>> senses, hearing is logarithmic both with respect to frequency and
>>> loudness. This means that our discrimination of one frequency as
>>> compared to another increases with decreasing frequency. That is, we are
>>> better able to separate signals from each other with RX pitch set to
>>> lower frequencies.
>>> 73, Jim K9YC
>> Exactly right.
>> I have screaming-loud tinnitus at 1700hz - which is louder than
>> conversation, and rises and falls in pitch and volume with every
>> heartbeat... Fun, fun.
>> Changing sidetone from 800 to 400 made a HUGE difference in my ability to
>> copy through the chaos. I did so after reading an article 2 or 3 years ago
>> - perhaps those referenced, but I thought it was done by the USAF for
>> intercept operators in the late 60's - I may be mistaken.
>> ut for those who might not get the implications of what Jim said: our
>> perceptions depend less on absolute values than on the difference between
>> two values. That's why when you get "hot" with a fever, you "feel cold"
>> (and want heat, blankets, etc.): the outside air is now "colder" with
>> respect to your skin temp.
>> In terms of Morse, if the signal you're listening to is at 800 Hz, and the
>> interfering signal (or even the tone of the white noise) is at 700 Hz, the
>> 100hz difference amounts to just 12%. However, if the desired signal is at
>> 400 Hz, and the interfering signal at 300, that 100hz difference is now
>> 25%. At 300/200, it's 50%. Bigger differences are easier to copy.
>> I did have to reprogram myself to listen at the lower frequency -
>> familiarity had bred contentment.
>> 73 Chris NW6V
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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]

Elecraft mailing list

Re: Copying CW and Pitch

I guess I'll play the contrarian here. Back in '65 when I first got licensed I used 1kHz! For a long time I was using 800Hz, but nowadays I like 700 Hz. I understand the arguments and have unscientifically experimented with lower at times, including down to 300 or so, but it sounds kinda lugubrious and in the situation I've tried I've not noticed any consequential improvement in my ability to copy in QRM/N. I played the flute and piccolo for many years (and contrarianly, the baritone sax) and that might contribute to my predilection for high frequencies and frequency discrimination, or maybe it was the other way around, IDK.
Lou W7HV
On Monday, March 15, 2021, 8:57:44 AM MDT, Michael K Bottles via Elecraft <[hidden email]> wrote:

Interesting comments.

In the late 1960’s the late Harvey Hetland (WA6KZI/N6MM) told me exactly the same thing: a lower tone was better for copying CW. For a long time I was at 450-500, now that I am in my 70’s I am down around 400-420. I guess Harvey was right way back then.

Kim - K7IM

Sent from my iPad

>
______________________________________________________________
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 Liesen

Re: Copying CW and Pitch

In reply to this post by Jim Brown-10

Hi all,
I too find a lower pitch better as I get older. However, for me,
weighting is >the< factor in ease of copy. Some fists I struggle to copy
at 15 WPM, but when the weighting is just "right", whole words just pop
into my head at most any speed up to ~30 WPM.
I have analyzed with a CPO what meets that criteria, and have concluded
that significantly longer dahs, and shorter spaces between characters is
what is "right". I'm sure my "right" is likely to sound like an
abomination to some others......I'd love to know more about what is going
on in my head vs others under these conditions. "CW and the brain" would
make a great thesis in my view.

Bob WB0POQ
______________________________________________________________
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]

KENT TRIMBLE

Re: Copying CW and Pitch

In reply to this post by Elecraft mailing list

Just a personal observation, but for me, anyway, the optimum pitch varies.

What seemed optimum yesterday is different today.

What seemed optimum this morning won't be optimum this evening.

What seemed optimum on one rig is not optimum on another rig.

What seemed optimum on 20 meters is not optimum on 80 meters.

What seemed optimum from speakers won't be optimum from headphones.

And most importantly, what seemed optimum during one QSO won't
necessarily be optimum during the next QSO.

That's why RIT is such a valuable receiver accessory. After zeroing the
transmitter to the incoming signal, the RIT is adjusted for wherever the
peak seems to be at that given moment.

And continual re-adjustment may be necessary as QSB, QRN, signal
polarity, signal drifting, and other factors come into play.

For me, anyway, that's the way it seems to work.

73,

Kent K9ZTV

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
______________________________________________________________
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

Re: Copying CW and Pitch

In reply to this post by Elecraft mailing list

On 3/15/2021 10:22 AM, Louandzip via Elecraft wrote:
>

I've not presented "arguments," only science.

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]

Drew AF2Z

Re: Copying CW and Pitch

In reply to this post by KENT TRIMBLE

The limitation of using RIT/VFO for pitch adjustment is that it will
move the signal out of the narrowed passband of the filter or APF. A
pitch control will adjust the signal's pitch over a wide range even
after it has been centered in a very narrow filter.

My understanding is that the K4 will allow you to hear the pitch of the
signal as it is adjusted. (The K3 PITCH control masks the signal while
being adjusted, so you can only hear the effect on the signal when you
disengage it.)

73,
Drew
AF2Z

On 03/15/21 14:26, KENT TRIMBLE wrote:

> Just a personal observation, but for me, anyway, the optimum pitch varies.
>
> What seemed optimum yesterday is different today.
>
> What seemed optimum this morning won't be optimum this evening.
>
> What seemed optimum on one rig is not optimum on another rig.
>
> What seemed optimum on 20 meters is not optimum on 80 meters.
>
> What seemed optimum from speakers won't be optimum from headphones.
>
> And most importantly, what seemed optimum during one QSO won't
> necessarily be optimum during the next QSO.
>
> That's why RIT is such a valuable receiver accessory. After zeroing the
> transmitter to the incoming signal, the RIT is adjusted for wherever the
> peak seems to be at that given moment.
>
> And continual re-adjustment may be necessary as QSB, QRN, signal
> polarity, signal drifting, and other factors come into play.
>
> For me, anyway, that's the way it seems to work.
>
> 73,
>
> Kent K9ZTV
>
>
>
>
>