Message-ID: <27785.200005221541@gemini>
From: "James Moritz" <j.r.moritz@herts.ac.uk>
Organization: University of Hertfordshire
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 16:48:32 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: LF: Re: Best tone for aural copy
In-reply-to: <3.0.1.16.20000522155342.2e97c76c@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be>
References: <009501bfc3ef$311dcd60$370235d5@w8k3f0>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

Dear LF Group,
	I am intrigued by the discussion about different tones, listening 
conditions, etc. Personally, I favour about 1kHz, but this might just 
be because that's the frequency which comes out of most of the 
receivers I have used. On the G3WSC Puckeridge expedition, I 
found it quite difficult to get used to other people's receivers, with a 
lower audio pitch.

I agree that reducing the bandwidth does not help much when trying 
to copy a signal in the noise. Subjectively, as the bandwidth is 
reduced, the noise sounds more like the CW tone you are trying to 
copy, so although there may be less noise, it is harder to 
differentiate between it and the signal. It's a different story with 
QRM, when a narrow filter is very useful.

I have also experienced the phenomenon of being able to copy 
weak signals well when in a different room to the receiver, or from 
the sound from headphones sitting on the table. I'm not sure about 
different CW speeds, however - at least for me, I can receive slow 
sending better, but then I struggle with fast sending even with no 
QRN!

I'm now waiting for the RadCom article reviewing crockery to see 
which bowl gives the best signal-to-noise......

Cheers, Jim Moritz
73 de M0BMU

Cheers, Jim Moritz
73 de M0BMU