Indeed - and I wonder what processor my Drake R-4 is using to decode CW and
SSB? Copy by ear vs. computer decoding is *not* "splitting hairs".
73 de Lee, AA4GA
On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 8:46 AM James Cain <jamesdavidcain@gmail.com> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: James Cain <jamesdavidcain@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 12:29 PM
> Subject: 6M CW
> To: CQ-Contest Reflector <cq-contest@contesting.com>
>
>
> I want to respond to something AB7E wrote. See "The only differences ..."
>
> Yes my HF transceiver may use some digital signal processing. But alleging
> that's no different from using FTx is *false equivalence*. It also smacks
> of what's known as "both sides do it."
>
> Paul, EI5DI, is right: "computer-to-computer" QSOs that remove the human
> element -- the operator -- from the equation suck the very lifeblood from
> our hobby.
>
> I'm waiting for someone to weigh in with the argument that "Often you can
> *hear* the signal that FTx is de-coding, you just can't copy it." This
> reminds me of "list operations" that began appearing in the late 1970s:
>
> "You are four by four."
> "Roger the five by five."
> "GOOD CONTACT!"
>
> cain K1TN
>
> You know that your rig is a full fledged computer running all sorts of DSP
> signal enhancement software for all modes, including CW and SSB, right?
> The incoming (and outgoing) signals are digitally sliced and diced beyond
> all recognition, processed mathematically, then reassembled to look like
> the analog signals you want to hear. The ONLY differences with FT8 is that
> the computer is outboard of the rig (although it needn't be), the software
> processing is more sophisticated, and the signals get transmitted before
> they are converted back to look like an analog signal. Although it hasn't
> been done yet, FT8-type signals COULD even be converted back to CW or voice
> in the receiver before you even knew they were there.
>
> I think you are severely splitting hairs here.
>
>
> As I have said many times, though, I think that WSJT-X does a poor job of
> making the best use of modern signal processing by having such a stilted
> interface, and I also think it is a mistake to include FT8/FT4 in contests
> normally intended for other modes. The style of operation is totally
> different.
>
> 73,
> Dave AB7E
>
>
>
> On 10/26/2022 7:47 AM, Paul O'Kane wrote:
>
> On 25/10/2022 19:14, David Gilbert AB7E wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> Calling FT8 an "existential threat to ham radio" is ludicrous no matter how
> much you or I may dislike it. Anything that encourages lots of activity
> like FT8 does is exactly the opposite.
>
> Dave is right, insofar as anything that hams care to transmit, or cause to
> be transmitted, on the ham bands may be described as ham radio, and insofar
> as "lots of activity", regardless of how it's generated, is inherently good
> in itself.
>
> All the same, your computer talking to my computer over ham-band RF leaves
> me cold. And, yes, that includes RTTY.
>
> 73,
>
> Paul EI5DI
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|