I think the difference between RTTY decoders and CW decoders is the essence of
the two modes. The game of RTTY contesting inherently, by the mode's nature,
requires us to interpret machine copy. The core essence of the magic of CW
involves those of us in this fairly small fraternity interpreting our common
language on our own.
There isn't necessarily anything wrong with a decoder for CW; it's just a
significant deviation from that essence.
By the way, I like the neatness of using "inside the station" vs "outside the
station" as a potentially cleaner demarcation between entry classes. (If it
were universally adopted, we'd have to find a new perpetual argument!) But I
think that kind of distinction loses the fact that there is a score-influencing
difference between operating "boy and his radio" style versus "use every tool I
can because more Q's = more fun".
At the end of the day, as long as it doesn't require much brain power to figure
out what entry class to put on my log right after the contest, and as long as I
don't have to watch the clock to avoid running afoul of pesky band-change
rules, I don't care. I just want the fun of putting Q's in the log, garnished
with the occasional "gee whiz" when nifty DX is encountered. :)
--
Michael Adams | N1EN | mda@n1en.org
-----Original Message-----
__73, de Hans, K0HB
"Just a Boy and His Radio"™
PS: Voice recognition technology is maturing rapidly. Will contest sponsors
view it as the equivalent of a CW decoder? If not, why not? How about RTTY
decoders?
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|