Hi George!
K5TR wrote:
>While I will not dispute that CW does better in getting
through the noise on these bands - I think that more of the
score diffrences can be attributed to these problems:
1 - Lack of ssb frequency alignment on the low bands.
This forces the use of split frequency operation.
2 - Very limited frequency ranges in some countries.
There is not very much bandwidth to jam the
SSB signals into.
1. 40 and 80 must operate split between Region 2 and
Regions 1 & 3 for the most part...but that has not been the case
for 160 which has identical favorable results for CW as on
the other two bands. Of course, I maintain SSB scores on 160
will actually go up if we segment and DX operates split. The
simple reason is that DX will not be buried underneath extremely
strong local US stations continuously CQ-ing on top of them.
2. Part of the problem with SSB is that it is a
bandwidth hog. When you try to crowd an equivalent number
of contesters into the same low band frequencies, the narrow
bandwidth mode will always win. The inverse of this is 10-20
meters where SSB usually wins. On 10 meters, with effectively
no bandwidth limit on either mode, SSB wins by about 50% (my CQ
WW SSB record is 1.464M versus my CW record of 0.965M).
>Dont you think the 160 scores might have more to do
with limited band allocations and in some cases no
band allocations on 160 than they
have to do with other factors?
Not at all. It has more to do with the fact that a
narrow bandwidth mode allows better copy of weak signals
because the narrower bandwidth allows better rejection of
interference, noise, etc. This is the same reason that digital
modes work well in extracting signals from noise. Programs
like WSJT, QRSS/Spectrascan, etc effectively make EXTREMELY narrow
bandwidths using DSP that allow copy even below the noise floor
(of course I personally do not think a computer-to-computer
WSJT or QRSS "QSO" means much but that's another topic!)
>How do QSO totals in the 160m SSB contest compair to the
QSO totals in the CQ 160 CW contest?
(I dont know.)
In general, SSB QSO totals are higher in the CQ 160 SSB,
especially so for stations in the middle of the US, which can be
seen here (CW contintental and USA records listed before SSB on
the same page):
http://members.aol.com/k3bu/W160Records.htm
However, CQ 160 CW SCORES are higher because CW works better for
weak-signal DX resulting in higher multipliers and points/QSO.
BTW, total participation in the CQ 160 SSB and CW is almost
identical, so the difference cannot be explained by activity
levels. In the CQ WW, 160 CW QSO totals are generally higher than
SSB because that contest tends to be more DX to DX (favoring CW's
superiority in working weak DX signals) compared to the CQ 160
which is more weighted to local QSO's (at least in the USA).
73, Bill W4ZV
|