[Icom] No Anti Dsp Conspiricy Exists

[alexander eban]

...don't forget the filter you have between the ears: it can work =
wonders!!!
		73,

			Alex	4Z5KS

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	George, W5YR [SMTP:w5yr@att.net]
> Sent:	=E0 19 =EE=E0=E9 2002 21:34
> To:	icom@mailman.qth.net
> Subject:	Re: [Icom] No Anti Dsp Conspiricy Exists
>=20
> I recently conducted an interesting - to me at least - experiment. I
> obtained a soundcard program that would generate random cw characters
> within a defined white noise background at a specified S/N ratio.
>=20
> I am 72 and the old ears have lost a lot of highs but still fairly =
decent
> below about 5 KHz. My companion for this test is 77 and in about the =
same
> shape.
>=20
> We started the test at S/N =3D +10 db to get a feeling for the tone =
and
> sending, etc. Speed was about 18 wpm. Then we started dropping the =
S/N
> down. We were both amazed to find that we could still hear and read =
the
> code almost without any problem with S/N =3D -10 db. Going lower, we =
lost
> the
> code in the noise at about -13 db. We could still tell that there was =
a
> code signal in there but could not make out any characters. Back to =
-10 db
> and almost solid copy again.
>=20
> The surprising thing here is that I had always had the notion that at =
S/N
> =3D
> 0 db, one could perceive a signal but not really read it. To be able =
to
> get
> almost solid copy at -10 db was really an eye opener - or ear opener =
as
> the
> case may be!   <:}
>=20
> 73/72/oo, George W5YR - the Yellow Rose of Texas        =20
> Fairview, TX 30 mi NE of Dallas in Collin county EM13qe  =20
> Amateur Radio W5YR, in the 56th year and it just keeps getting =
better!
> QRP-L 1373 NETXQRP 6 SOC 262 COG 8 FPQRP 404 TEN-X 11771 I-LINK 11735
> Icom IC-756PRO #02121  Kachina 505 DSP  #91900556  Icom IC-765 #02437
>=20
>=20
> Wayne Montague/Ann Beattie wrote:
> >=20
> > Regarding "the myth that CW gets through" the statement is quite
> > accurate. What is conveniently overlooked is that the digital
> > modes are hardware intensive and that a good CW operator can
> > hear signals "in the noise" too. I, and everyone have a pretty
> > good 'processor' between the ears that requires no hardware at
> > all. Metaphorically, I'd much prefer to be scratching a 'help'
> > message out with two bare wires while the water level is rising
> > rather than wait for the 'pooter to boot. 'SOS' is universally
> > understood, which is what I would desire under adverse
> > conditions. This is where "CW gets through" is coming from. On a
> > day to day basis, the digital modes are clearly superior for
> > information exchange.
> >=20
> > Despite all the state of the art hardware, the Shuttle at one
> > time had a Morse hand key on the panel, and for good reason
> > (news article some years ago titled "The Death of CW?").
>=20
> ----
> Your Moderator: Dick Flanagan W6OLD, icom-owner@mailman.qth.net
> Icom FAQ: http://www.qsl.net/icom/
>=20
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.362 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 07/05/02
> =20
>=20
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.362 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 07/05/02
=20