The AM Forum

THE AM BULLETIN BOARD => QSO => Topic started by: KX5JT on July 10, 2010, 06:46:52 PM



Title: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: KX5JT on July 10, 2010, 06:46:52 PM
I'm a CQer.  I know many AMers are not really CQers.  They are apparently content to sit in the "AM Window" and wait for others to show up, then join.  Well I do that on occasion too, but as someone who keeps odd hours due to work schedule, I would be operating very little AM without CQing.  So I'm a CQer.  I usually CQ in and around the usual "watering holes" for AM.

3.655 3.700 3.705 3.725 3.880 3.885 3.890 7.160 7.290 7.293 7.295 14.286 21.420 21.425
29.000 50.400

Assuming I have the capability to do those frequencies at the time (due to present antenna/tuner configurations), I may be CQing on any of those.  Presently I am limited to the 75 meter window (aka ghetto) and all of 40 meter phone.

Now all that being said, I have noticed a strange phenomenon that occurs rather frequently.  If I cq for a while (and this occurs often), I often will hear a dead carrier return for a few seconds.  It is apparently meant for me to hear because it occurs when I'm listening in between calls.  Does anyone else notice this?  I often think "okay maybe someone is tuning up sans dummy load and I'm about to have a contact".  But it doesn't happen.  I'll just get a carrier, often really strong and more than s9.  

Just wondering if this happens to anyone else.

John KX5JT


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: KA0HCP on July 10, 2010, 07:20:40 PM
'                   '


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: KB2WIG on July 10, 2010, 07:32:25 PM
.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: WQ9E on July 10, 2010, 07:48:03 PM
When I first saw the topic I thought this was the AM version of a silent key and you were going to spin a Halloween tale  :)

I have had the same experience with the carrier response to a CQ.  It is sort of like getting a nibble while fishing and sometimes a signal report (Beautiful S-9 plus 10 carrier with no hum) will result in a response and a chance to set the hook.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: KF1Z on July 10, 2010, 07:48:26 PM
.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: KC2YOI on July 10, 2010, 08:24:27 PM
The wise cracker lamp is lit....  ;D   "                    "

Your not imagining it John, I hear it also as a 3rd party on occasion.

My guess is an opportunistic load up on air as it's a flag for an open frequency.

                                                           D.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on July 10, 2010, 08:42:34 PM
Or you get those unidentified responses, "hey, you got too much carrier on your signal; check your rig"


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: KX5JT on July 10, 2010, 08:45:25 PM
Or you get those unidentified responses, "hey, you got too much carrier on your signal; check your rig"

I've yet to hear that one.  ;D


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: k4kyv on July 10, 2010, 09:49:19 PM
Or you get those unidentified responses, "hey, you got too much carrier on your signal; check your rig"

I've yet to hear that one.  ;D

Years ago, sometime in the mid 80s, I got an OO card that said that.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: Ed - N3LHB on July 10, 2010, 10:29:10 PM
"                       "


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: Opcom on July 10, 2010, 11:30:29 PM
I often hear carriers with evidence of tuning up going on. The ops don't ID when done, or say 'testing' or anything else.
I figure it's a ssb station tuning up then moving a few KC away to join or start something.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: W1RKW on July 11, 2010, 08:19:32 AM
some carriers sound like belches. ;D


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: W9GT on July 11, 2010, 09:01:00 AM
Didn't Tron develop an effective response to dead carriers on freq.?  Something like "use a dummy load, dummy!"  Kidding aside, I have often noticed a similar phenomenon.  I usually assume that it is either someone who doesn't particularly want to talk, or, perhaps a disgruntled SSBer.

73,  Jack, W9GT


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: WA3VJB on July 11, 2010, 10:07:44 AM
I also am a CQ-er, and I also get dead carrier responses. Thought it was my mouthwash at first, but then I realized it's probably someone on a contemporary transceiver checking it out on AM for the first time.

Several times I've encouraged people who proffer a dead carrier by saying "hey, good signal, no audio (pause to listen)." I will then presume they need to be talked through their adjustments, and several times by saying this, it will get someone to actually talk.

They acknowledge that they haven't been on AM before, and weren't sure how to set the rig up.

After some preliminaries, including providing some feedback on their carrier/audio adjustments, we then have a QSO and a new participant on AM.



Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: ka3zlr on July 11, 2010, 10:20:49 AM
...any heavy breathers... :o


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: WU2D on July 11, 2010, 11:25:56 AM
Is it a strange on off sequence ? - turn on your BFO.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: K1JJ on July 11, 2010, 11:43:14 AM
CQ's answered by dead carriers?  

I think some instances might be fellow AMer's who are not really in the mood to talk at the moment but are feeling frisky - they tease a little by keying up a big carrier for a few seconds. In a sense they've made a "contact" without having to be tied up in a long QSO.... ;D  It's like saying, "Yep, you're being heard - keep calling."  Usually this short distraction turns out to be a good thing - causes dialogue and generates a legitimate call from someone who IS interested in talking - and the QSO gets rolling.  In contrast, sometimes calling CQ can go on forever if there is no response whatsoever.  

That's my guess.


In other instances, I've heard some locals respond to a CQ by dropping a big carrier and pausing. The CQer will say something like, "Wow! What a BIG carrier!" Then the guy will laugh and ID, as the QSO begins. Lots of variations - just part of the game.


T


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: K9PNP on July 11, 2010, 11:45:10 AM
Looks like it's just not me that hears this.  I also love the station tuning up [I presume that's what they are doing] and then sending something on CW that doesn't make any sense; something like the old 5-letter code groups.  Did the carrier-only myself once; had turned the audio gain down on the xmtr for some reason and couldn't understand why I had a good carrier and no audio.  Makes you feel really stupid.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: ka3zlr on July 11, 2010, 11:50:09 AM
...CQ-DQ.... ;D it's getten hot out.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: KM1H on July 11, 2010, 03:01:57 PM
Ive always figured it was some senile old coot (or stoned younger one) who forgot to turn the switch from tune to AM or his D-104 battery died ::)


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: k4kyv on July 11, 2010, 03:29:11 PM
My D-104 doesn't have a battery in it.

I have on occasion dropped my T/R switch that is attached to the spiral cord on the floor, and not been able to find it.

Even more annoying than the "ghost carriers" that answer CQs without audio is the ones that tune up on top of an ongoing AM QSO but never identify or attempt to actually break into the QSO.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: ka3zlr on July 11, 2010, 03:39:52 PM
The again maybe they think they're dropping the Maul...LOL :D

I Strapped that guy..LOL 8)


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: KX5JT on July 11, 2010, 06:01:38 PM
Just happened to me again on 7.160.... BIG Carrier right after I dropped the key on my first CQ.  NOW I WONDER IF IT'S ONE OF YOU JOKERS! HAH!

John


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: ke7trp on July 11, 2010, 07:33:58 PM
YOUR VFO is sticking on in the Transmitter after a long transmission of calling CQ.. LOL  Next time, Yank the xtal out or turn the TX-VFO and watch it go away.. LOL!!!

C


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: KX5JT on July 11, 2010, 08:13:39 PM
Hah, no it's not that Clark, however I have left my VFO on spot before and of course that puts an s9 signal on the receiver...  8)



Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: K9PNP on July 11, 2010, 09:43:45 PM
Just happened to me again on 7.160.... BIG Carrier right after I dropped the key on my first CQ.  NOW I WONDER IF IT'S ONE OF YOU JOKERS! HAH! John [/quote]

For once I have an alibi.  I'm at work and the only rigs I have are VHF Hi-band FM and 700/800 MHz digital FM.  And the 10M multimode in my personal van.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: KX5JT on July 11, 2010, 10:08:49 PM
The thought occured to me that SOME of those dead carrier replies happen in the Extra portion of the bands.... maybe it's a General who doesn't wanna id but hopes we say "I hear a strong carrier".



Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: KF1Z on July 11, 2010, 10:52:16 PM
If I think its someone playing around, the LAST thing I'd say is that I hear a big carrier....

You'd do better to mention the PW carrier in the background....

 ;D


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: KX5JT on July 11, 2010, 10:59:42 PM
If I think its someone playing around, the LAST thing I'd say is that I hear a big carrier....

You'd do better to mention the PW carrier in the background....

 ;D

Right Bruce, "I hear a weak carrier.. maybe someone is trying to answer... try it again OM!"

Usually I'll just keep calling CQ without mentioning it unless it keeps answering.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: flintstone mop on July 12, 2010, 07:12:46 AM
CQ's answered by dead carriers?  

I think some instances might be fellow AMer's who are not really in the mood to talk at the moment but are feeling frisky - they tease a little by keying up a big carrier for a few seconds. In a sense they've made a "contact" without having to be tied up in a long QSO.... ;D  It's like saying, "Yep, you're being heard - keep calling."  Usually this short distraction turns out to be a good thing - causes dialogue and generates a legitimate call from someone who IS interested in talking - and the QSO gets rolling.  In contrast, sometimes calling CQ can go on forever if there is no response whatsoever.  

That's my guess.


In other instances, I've heard some locals respond to a CQ by dropping a big carrier and pausing. The CQer will say something like, "Wow! What a BIG carrier!" Then the guy will laugh and ID, as the QSO begins. Lots of variations - just part of the game.


T

I like JJ's response. Might be a new way of communicating. You guess by the carrier strength where it might be coming from. Maybe a few key-ups will give away a signature type of code about the transmitter.

Fred


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: KX5JT on July 12, 2010, 07:18:29 AM
  :o


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: KC2YOI on July 12, 2010, 08:09:19 AM
Perhaps you could reply with a dead key reply of your own.

If this brings a response, key up several times again but vary the duration.

If the 2nd party follows suit, you could build up a vocabulary of short and long duration transmissions.

If this works out, impose a tone on the carrier during the long and short transmissions and you may create a new form of communication.... ;D



Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: KX5JT on July 12, 2010, 08:15:32 AM
Perhaps you could reply with a dead key reply of your own.

If this brings a response, key up several times again but vary the duration.

If the 2nd party follows suit, you could build up a vocabulary of short and long duration transmissions.

If this works out, impose a tone on the carrier during the long and short transmissions and you may create a new form of communication.... ;D



Brilliant!!! 


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on July 12, 2010, 09:14:40 AM
It's very slow speed CW. They're sending a T.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: KX5JT on July 12, 2010, 09:48:48 AM
Or maybe it's an E... depends how slow.. hmmm.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: k4kyv on July 12, 2010, 11:58:38 AM
Now for to-day's puzzler.

If they turn the carrier on and leave it on for six months, then turn it off for another six months, then back on again, is it a string of dits at 0.000001903 characters per minute, or is it an AM carrier modulated 100% by a square wave at 0.000000032 Hz? What would be the difference? Actually, there is none; the transmitted signal would be exactly the same in both cases. If we interpret it as the latter, then there has to a steady carrier, 6 dB down from the observed signal, running continuously the entire time, along with a complex set of sidebands on the upper and lower sides, spaced at odd harmonics of the modulating frequency, extending infinitely throughout the spectrum.

Now, why don't we hear that carrier during the 6-month period while the transmitter is turned off, even though it is supposed to be there? I'll give the answer subsequently if no-one comes up with it.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: Knightt150 on July 12, 2010, 03:25:18 PM
I have heard this several times in the past, and I have been told who it is but I cant remenber. He was a ham who was on 40M and I have talked to him in the past but still cant remember the name. Even if I could remember I would not put it out on the forum. If someone realy wants to know send me a email and I will give you what I know maybe we can figure it out from there.

John W9BFO
email w9bfo-am@charter.net


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: W2ZE on July 12, 2010, 03:35:11 PM
Many times I have just dropped a strong carrier on a clear frequency, and had someone call back. Reverse CQ'ing.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: K1JJ on July 12, 2010, 04:07:17 PM
Many times I have just dropped a strong carrier on a clear frequency, and had someone call back. Reverse CQ'ing.

Yep, so true, Mike.  My favorite way to start a QSO is to find a clear freq, spend 15 seconds tuning up and then sock a few Holas to see how the rig looks on the scope. If it's prime time on 75M, I'll get an answer at least 70% of the time. There are usually many listening looking for the chance to start up.

The bigger our signal, the quicker the response, of course. Most hams think if they hear someone loud, then THEY too, will be loud on the other end. Not always the case, but it helps.

When I get a dead carrier return, I'll usually give them a signal report like it's a normal thang. This may get them to ID and join in.

Otherwise, just the jabber will attract others to the frequency.  I think it's the built-in ham desire to help restore "law and order" that makes them come in if there is jamming or anonymous carriers going on... ;)

T


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: ka3zlr on July 12, 2010, 04:24:57 PM
LOL That's all we need another form of communication LOL

Call it DCRT Yessir : Dead Carrier Return Transmission

CQ DCRT............................................................................................Over

Length of Emission optional to Subscribers.

Just like when it's hot out CQDQ  CQ Dairy Queen CQDQ.. :D


73

Not Normal.



Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: WD5JKO on July 26, 2010, 07:43:15 AM

Happened to me last night on 7165. I had been calling CQ for about 10 minutes with many pauses, and THEN A carrier swooshed onto my frequency, dropped out, came back, dropped out, and returned for about 30 seconds. It was very strong. I followed with QRZ, etc....nothing - gone.

Jim
WD5JKO


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: W2PFY on July 26, 2010, 10:34:10 AM
The answer has been in front of you all the time. It's HF MOON BOUNCE. Next time try different lengths of cq calling. The longer you call CQ, the longer the dead carrier. It's not understood why HF signals that bounce off the moon lose their modulation. I think it a weird phase shift where the modulation goes to the dark side of the moon.

Maybe some day science will answer this question??


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on July 26, 2010, 12:30:34 PM
The answer has been in front of you all the time. It's HF MOON BOUNCE. Next time try different lengths of cq calling. The longer you call CQ, the longer the dead carrier. It's not understood why HF signals that bounce off the moon lose their modulation. I think it a weird phase shift where the modulation goes to the dark side of the moon.

Maybe some day science will answer this question??

When the modulated signal hits the moon and returns, the audio waveform returned is 180 degrees out of phase, effectively canceling the audio component. It must be true; I read this on the web.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: WD5JKO on July 26, 2010, 01:42:59 PM
When the modulated signal hits the moon and returns, the audio waveform returned is 180 degrees out of phase, effectively canceling the audio component. It must be true; I read this on the web.

 maybe the offending station is running "East Coast Audio"  :P

Jim
WD5JKO


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on July 26, 2010, 09:17:54 PM
What's east coast audio?


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: Todd, KA1KAQ on July 26, 2010, 11:43:39 PM
What's east coast audio?

That's when you see a carrier pop up on your meter, and you can actually hear and understand the audio associated with it.  ;)


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: KX5JT on July 27, 2010, 12:00:35 AM
Maybe it's a CQ from an alternate universe where their time is so fast that the audio becomes subaudible.  We here in this world seem like a still picture to them.... 

Reference:  Star Trek Episode 68 - "Wink of an Eye"


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: WD5JKO on July 27, 2010, 09:27:19 AM
What's east coast audio?

I got the concept from the following post:

http://amfone.net/ECSound/k1jj22.html

Those that run big carriers with little audio will sound fantastic to each other on short skip 75m propagation where a bunch of AM'ers are all within a 200 mile radius of each other, hence "east coast sound". These same carriers make it to the Midwest, and the west coast, but are largely unintelligible since the audio is usually in the noise level due to the low modulation percentage. Listening to NE roundtables here in Texas, this effect is very apparent. Then the next guy might be 100% Q5 and not have an S meter reading any higher. 

I'm not being critical; this was just an observation with a little tongue in cheek jab.  ;D

Jim
WD5JKO


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: K1JJ on July 27, 2010, 11:00:34 AM
Hi Jim,

Yes, some audio may be hard to copy long distance even if modulated fully - if it has too much boosted low end or lack of highs, no doubt.



"Flexibility under varying conditions is the key here. "

This last sentence is the key to that post.  There are nights when the hi-fi east coast guys hold court and just want to talk locally. The group often gets so large they don't bother to listen for western break-ins.  Keeping the audio down to around 100% positive is just fine. It's easier on their AM band neighbors too. Then when cornditions get poor or we start having western check-ins, the audio gets cranked up.  The class E guys can run upwards of 180%+ modulation. I do with my e-rig sometimes. The plate modulated rigs are usually more limited, but heck, the BC stations usually run no more than 130% positive, right?

Personally, I think modulation levels are like power levels - be ready to adjust them for varying conditions. The downside is when the eastern locals turn their audio down, they may be hard to hear out west, but then there's always the web based receivers to listen in... :o  (and vice-versa for hearing west coast guys on 3870)

It's really an art to adjust our audio to sound good locally and still have DX punch. That's why having multiple EQ, processing and percentage of modulation settings are important.


Gawd, I'm just dying to get back on the air. It's been about 4 weeks in this heat.  Been out playing with summertime thangs.

Later -

T


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: ka3zlr on July 27, 2010, 11:06:49 AM
Expectations ..Oh Boy.. ::)


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: John Holotko on July 27, 2010, 11:49:52 AM
Or you get those unidentified responses, "hey, you got too much carrier on your signal; check your rig"

I've yet to hear that one.  ;D

Years ago, sometime in the mid 80s, I got an OO card that said that.

Me too. It happened the first time I was on AM. A couple days later I got an OO card saying that I had a carrier. I was temptedto answer with a "thank you".  ;D


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on July 27, 2010, 12:22:57 PM
Did you ever consider that most signals from Texas and nearby states have similarly poor intelligence as heard here on the east coast?    ;)

I know very few east coast stations that purposely run big carriers with low modulation. I'm not sure where this myth got started but it doesn't square with reality. If anything, I've heard too many on the east coast trying to run too much positive peak modulation. It's loud but not always the best sounding.



What's east coast audio?

I got the concept from the following post:

http://amfone.net/ECSound/k1jj22.html

Those that run big carriers with little audio will sound fantastic to each other on short skip 75m propagation where a bunch of AM'ers are all within a 200 mile radius of each other, hence "east coast sound". These same carriers make it to the Midwest, and the west coast, but are largely unintelligible since the audio is usually in the noise level due to the low modulation percentage. Listening to NE roundtables here in Texas, this effect is very apparent. Then the next guy might be 100% Q5 and not have an S meter reading any higher.  

I'm not being critical; this was just an observation with a little tongue in cheek jab.  ;D

Jim
WD5JKO


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: ka3zlr on July 27, 2010, 12:42:12 PM
Did you ever consider that most signals from Texas and nearby states have similarly poor intelligence as heard here on the east coast?    ;)

What's east coast audio?


Yessum  an even some of the Transplanted ones... :o


lol

I'm not being critical; this was just an observation with a little tongue in cheek jab.  ;D



Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: WA3VJB on July 27, 2010, 12:50:40 PM
poor intelligence as heard here on the east coast?

Man, I could go on about poor intelligence that I've heard over the years. Mostly on slopbucket of course (just listening, as when no one will answer my dead carrier CQ). For these folks, narrow bandwidth = narrow mindwidth.

But when it comes to intelligibility, yes, weaker signals are typically less readable than strong sigs, and suitable audio quality can only partially compensate.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: k4kyv on July 27, 2010, 01:07:35 PM
It is also a matter of peak-to-average ratio.  With no compression to the audio, you may hit 130+% modulation on peaks, but with some voices, the average percentage of modulation is still less than 30%.  In that case it may sound like a strong carrier with low modulation. The typical human voice averages about 7-10 dB below the peaks.

A reasonable amount of compression will bring up the average percentage.  Even carefully applied clipping may help, with minimal distortion. But we have all heard "processing" taken to ridiculous extremes, particularly by slopbucketeers, when the voice is almost drowned out by background and fan noise.

An effective pre-emphasis curve can do wonders with voice intelligibility when used with minimal clipping/compression/limiting.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: ka3zlr on July 27, 2010, 01:12:35 PM
So I say Hey look man.. 8)

..."ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself"..


West Coast Intelligence Baaaaaaaa.

 


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: The Slab Bacon on July 27, 2010, 01:32:47 PM
And then there is (was) W3EGC, you could hear him everywhere on the band (at once)  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on July 27, 2010, 03:11:46 PM
With reverb! I think that was called Scranton Sound.

And then there is (was) W3EGC, you could hear him everywhere on the band (at once)  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: KB2WIG on July 27, 2010, 07:45:31 PM
FWIW,

A most interesting website by w2DTC. There are several sound bites.

 http://w2dtc.com/w2dtc-sound-bites-page.htm

klc


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: ka3zlr on July 27, 2010, 08:28:01 PM
..."Your that Simple Truck driver".....I was angry at the time now it's priceless  ;D

73

Jack.



Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: K5UJ on July 27, 2010, 08:47:01 PM
The worst thing to ever happen to the SSB crowd was the outboard RF speech clipper.  Now Ten Tec is selling one again and when those things are not run right the signal can get pretty nasty.  Back about 30 years ago ETO sold a box called the Vomax, which was a multi-band audio compressor with a cutoff at 3 KHz.  It was a great SSB processor but is almost unheard of today, however ETO had the right idea. 

It's not easy finding an affordable multiband compressor that has the necessary frequency response.   Unfortunately the Vomax was a little too Space Shuttlesque for AM.   Optimods are way too expensive.  Off-hand only other ones I can think of are the Behringer 9024 and the CRL Spectral Energy Processor, the SEP400.   They turn up used once in a blue moon.  They are not exactly cheap but they are way less than one of those Orban 9000 or 9100 jobs.  I use an old Orban 422 analog compressor -- it is not multi-band but it seems to work okay.  It is very transparent.  At first I could not tell it was working until I looked at an oscilloscope.   I had the compression up all the way but backed it off because the audio was a little to dense and harsh.   It makes a good driver for a limiter.

About the only two things I hear that affect intelligibility that are easily correctable are 1.  Over modulation and 2.  Too much bass.  If those two things are not the problem then the problem is usually an assortment of:   conditions, my receive setup, or a need for more power and/or more antenna.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: ka3zlr on July 27, 2010, 08:57:00 PM
This Processor here has affordable features.

http://www.zzounds.com/item--DBX286A

73

Jack.

 


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: w3jn on July 27, 2010, 10:56:58 PM


About the only two things I hear that affect intelligibility that are easily correctable are 1.  Over modulation and 2.  Too much bass.  If those two things are not the problem then the problem is usually an assortment of:   conditions, my receive setup, or a need for more power and/or more antenna.

Rob, I would add to that too LITTLE average modulation, and to my ears, modify your point about bass to read "too much bass at the expense of mid and highs" - ie, imbalance.

When I was posted to Cuba I did a lot of listening, using a 51J-4 with 3/6/9.7 KC filters, and a Drake R-8.  There were a lot of AM groups in 4 and 5 land that I could barely copy thru the static yet they had pretty strong signals due to very low modulation and telephone-quality audio that tended to be washed out by the static.

Conversely, stations running audio processing and wider audio were fully copyable - even in noisy condx with the 51J filter in the widest position.  I could almost always hear the tall ships in the Northeast even though their carriers as received in Havana were quite a bit weaker than the closer 4 and 5 landers.

The best combination was using the R-8 in its widest position (about 6 or 8 KC as I recall), sync detector on, and the passband tuning cranked all the way to either USB or LSB so the radio synced on the carrier but used its full bandwidth on only one sideband. 

On the AM BCB I could listen on any given night to WHAS Louisville (840 as I recall) and WTOP Washington (1500) with S-5 to S-9 carriers, (even thru the static and splatter from Radio Rebelde on 1300~ KC) on the R-8, both stations having processed and fairly wide yet sonically balanced audio.  10-20 over 9 carriers from low modulation amateurs were almost impossible to copy.

As an aside, the strongest AM amateur station I ever heard during that tour was in September 2002.  KB3AHE et al had set up a special events station at the Howard County, MD hamfest and it coincided with a solar event that produced aurora borealis fully visible south of the Mason-Dixon line.  That station was literally bouncing the S-meter off the peg on the 51-J at 10-11 PM local time. 

Anyway, I learned my lesson and upon my return to the US I scored a CRL spectral energy processor and peak limiter, which I believe markedly improved the effectiveness of my station due to improved modulation density.   

My point here is that given low QRM (but high QRN and/or weak signal) situations, receiver selectivity nor audio bandwidth is not nearly as important as a well-modulated signal.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: Todd, KA1KAQ on July 28, 2010, 02:03:25 PM
Did you ever consider that most signals from Texas and nearby states have similarly poor intelligence as heard here on the east coast?    ;)

When I was up north it was always difficult to hear most 4 and 5 Landers, even when they had a decent signal on the guess meter. Warren W1GUD made the trip pretty will with his 610 along with Gary K4XK, and I was able to work Brian WA5AM(then W5AMI) a couple times along with Jim W5JO in Oklahoma. also Marv with the T-368. Yet anytime Bill 'HG was on, he'd come barreling through, same with Ted K3COL(?) in Kansas City. I recall hearing Ted on some morning around 7-8AM, worked him a few times before heading off to the salt mines.

So I tend to think equipment and audio choices account for being heard more than conditions. When you think about it, there are certain stations like HLR who are always heard, all over the country. Several times I've seen folks comment online that they wouldn't run their rig like 'those east coast guys' which probably explains why they can't be heard.

No doubt, there are some who overdo it with added base and other, excessive processing. But even last night when conditions were so crappy I could here KBW and another station in the ghetto but only a few carriers with bits of audio from 4 and 5 Land.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: K5UJ on July 28, 2010, 05:05:51 PM
Yep the big arbiter of who gets heard is mother nature.   She can just shut everything down if she wants.  Forgetting about M.N. for now, I think the guys who are most likely to be armchair copy are the ones with good antennas.   I'm always amazed at how, with a really hot antenna and a little bit of good condx, a guy running a DX100 can fool me into thinking he's on a big broadcast rig.

JN, I agree and, in another thread I mentioned how sw bc stations seem to really have a lot of high positive modulation.  Of course they can usually afford some decent processing gear (not to mention a lot of power and a pretty good antenna).  That was interesting about the CRL gear--I have a CRL SEP400B and a PMC450 here--I keep planning on trying them out but can't get around to it.  I'm told they are LOUD.  Were originally developed for stations broadcasting rock and roll, how about that.  I get about 10 dB gain reduction with the Orban compressor and then I drive the 222 with it to get around 6 dB GR with it.

Todd, yes Bill and Ted kc3ol are both always strong here.  Ted has a great sig. with his bc rig.  Makes it in from KC even a few hours after local sunrise.  I've heard HLR pretty good copy even when running his Valiant--I think it's those dipoles way up high.    Antennas are everything, IMO, then audio, then carrier power.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: WA3VJB on July 28, 2010, 05:41:34 PM
Yes, I like the dbx stuff, new and old.

Station where I started out had a trio of dbx160 and a Crown tri-band splitter. Poor man's version of a DAP310, to compress separately the bass-midrange-treble. Sounded pretty good pushing an old Gates BC-1H.

Their newer transmitter had a UREI BL-40 Modulimiter. Except for the noisy automatic phase reverser (you could hear it do its thing during music), it was a solid performer.

Among current dbx --

For the price, this one deserves consideration, too:
http://www.bswusa.com/proditem.asp?item=266XL-BSTOCK

(http://168.75.125.68/assets/product_images/large/dbx_266xl.jpg)



This Processor here has affordable features.

http://www.zzounds.com/item--DBX286A

73

Jack.



Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: W2PFY on July 28, 2010, 05:55:48 PM
Quote
I've heard HLR pretty good copy even when running his Valiant--I think it's those dipoles way up high.

Most of his antennas are up at about 195 feet.



Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on July 29, 2010, 09:58:19 AM
Yep, the best audio processor is a good antenna.


Quote
I've heard HLR pretty good copy even when running his Valiant--I think it's those dipoles way up high.

Most of his antennas are up at about 195 feet.




Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: Todd, KA1KAQ on July 29, 2010, 02:41:14 PM
Eimac has a good line of antennas.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: K1JJ on July 29, 2010, 03:43:00 PM
Eimac has a good line of antennas.


PissWeakers are people too.... :'(


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on July 29, 2010, 04:27:56 PM
You're killing me....   :P

Who would know if they can't be heard?


Eimac has a good line of antennas.


PissWeakers are people too.... :'(


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: Todd, KA1KAQ on July 29, 2010, 04:29:46 PM
The PissWeaker's Creed:

PissWeakers Scream It 'Til They're BITF

Not to be confused with "The Weaker They Are, The Longer They Talk".

 ;D


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: Todd, KA1KAQ on July 29, 2010, 04:31:35 PM
You're killing me....   :P

Who would know if they can't be heard?

That's what the internet is for. The internet knows.....


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: K1JJ on July 29, 2010, 04:33:14 PM
BITF???


Black Information Technology Forum (South Africa) 
*** BITF Brawl in the Family (webcomic) 
*** BITF Body Image Task Force (University of Idaho) 
** BITF Borneo International Trade Fair (Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia) 
* BITF Business Initiative Task Force (US DoD)


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on July 29, 2010, 04:36:39 PM
Blue

In

The

Face


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: Todd, KA1KAQ on July 29, 2010, 04:49:50 PM
Brought to you by Jack, K9ACT and made famous by Buddly WD8BIL.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: W1IA on July 29, 2010, 04:53:48 PM
BITF???


Black Information Technology Forum (South Africa) 
*** BITF Brawl in the Family (webcomic) 
*** BITF Body Image Task Force (University of Idaho) 
** BITF Borneo International Trade Fair (Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia) 
* BITF Business Initiative Task Force (US DoD)

Waaa HAAA HAAA!

JJ you always tickle the funny bone!

B


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: W1VD on July 29, 2010, 05:10:02 PM
Quote
"The Weaker They Are, The Longer They Talk".

Truer words were never spoken ...


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: The Slab Bacon on July 30, 2010, 09:17:36 AM
Quote
"The Weaker They Are, The Longer They Talk".

Truer words were never spoken ...

Thatz when you just gotta do a "BANG, lookie here, squashed just like a bug!!"  ;D  ;D


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: KF1Z on July 30, 2010, 09:25:01 AM
Yeah... there's no need to be courteous to someone who's signal doesn't measure up to the standards.





Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: The Slab Bacon on July 30, 2010, 10:44:56 AM
If you are piss-weak, or your audio sounds like szht, most often someone WILL tell you about it. Then its up to you to act / adjust accordingly, or ...........................

Bang, lookie here!!  ;D  ;D

If you have "ear bleeding" audio no one wants to listen to you anyway. Even in a structured roundtable, if you are extreemly piss-weak, the roundtable will usually just go on right over top of you just as if you werent even there.

That should be your incentive to put out the best signal you can.

                                                                The Slab Bacon


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: ke7trp on July 30, 2010, 11:19:18 AM
A prime example of bring in competition to anything and everything.    :-[   Next up,  75 meter Key downs.


Heaven forbid you be courtious to anyone  ;D





Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: K1JJ on July 30, 2010, 11:23:23 AM
If you have "ear bleeding" audio no one wants to listen to you anyway.

 ;D ;D ;D   That's quite a message....   ;D ;D ;D


You're killing me Slab!


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: WD8BIL on July 30, 2010, 11:26:20 AM
Courtesy runs both ways.

If you're a PWer and have had BFS on a regular basis don't try to horn in on a qso that'll implode with your 10 minute diatribe on how nobody can hear ya.

TOM: BFS = Blue Face Syndrome


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: The Slab Bacon on July 30, 2010, 01:04:28 PM
A prime example of bring in competition to anything and everything.    :-[   Next up,  75 meter Key downs.
Heaven forbid you be courtious to anyone  ;D


Geeeeeezzzzeee..................... I guess you've never heard of a Strap Party!!  :o  :o  :o



STRAP!


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: Todd, KA1KAQ on July 31, 2010, 10:41:33 AM
Yes, there's a reason they call us 'Amateurs' after all. 

Been a while since I heard a good strapfest, but maybe 10 years back it was a regular occurrence. Yep, sometimes it got to be a bit much to where no one could get a word in without one or two individuals always trying to strap them, but every group has its attention whores. ;) For some of us, it was helpful in judging out coverage for receiving as well as transmitting. And results were never a given, though you always had the few powerhouses with huge, clean signals. It's not like it was constant, just more prevalent than now.

STRAP! (strap)

Overall I remember it being a pretty entertaining and informative time, in more ways than one. The late 80s/early 90s even moreso. During the early 90s I was relegated to pissweak status and learned early on that the 'respect' part is indeed a two way street. 'JJ was my teacher, so the lesson was at least gentle.  ;D


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: WA3VJB on August 01, 2010, 10:44:26 AM
Moreover, these things were spontaneous.  Someone would just drop a "STRAAP!?" in there, and then everyone else would be commenting when the poor victim would turn it over.

"Have I been strapped?"
  Was often the meek query that followed.

Thus began a more formal challenge and test of manhood.  Neutral arbiter, usually someone who could not strap, would provide the judging, and all would be invited to strap for the next 20-30 seconds or so to determine a winner.

Great fun and any number can play.





Yes, there's a reason they call us 'Amateurs' after all. 

Been a while since I heard a good strapfest, but maybe 10 years back it was a regular occurrence. Yep, sometimes it got to be a bit much to where no one could get a word in without one or two individuals always trying to strap them, but every group has its attention whores. ;) For some of us, it was helpful in judging out coverage for receiving as well as transmitting. And results were never a given, though you always had the few powerhouses with huge, clean signals. It's not like it was constant, just more prevalent than now.

STRAP! (strap)

Overall I remember it being a pretty entertaining and informative time, in more ways than one. The late 80s/early 90s even moreso. During the early 90s I was relegated to pissweak status and learned early on that the 'respect' part is indeed a two way street. 'JJ was my teacher, so the lesson was at least gentle.  ;D



Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: K5UJ on August 01, 2010, 01:40:58 PM
Seems to me that strapping boils down to antennas and real estate followed by clean positive peaks and compression followed by carrier.  the guy with the dipole on 75 m. at 150 feet, 350 watts, 150% positive with high average modulation wins.

You can probably gain 10 to 15 dB by taking your dipole up from 50 feet to 150 feet--pretty hard to get that kind of gain with power alone (if you already running a few hundred watts  ;)  )


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: KX5JT on August 01, 2010, 02:05:35 PM
Will a high dipole strap a low cloud burner dipole all other things equal at "local" distances of a couple hundred miles?


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: K1JJ on August 01, 2010, 02:23:21 PM
Will a high dipole strap a low cloud burner dipole all other things equal at "local" distances of a couple hundred miles?

Most strap corntests are local affairs within 300 miles or so on 75M.  As modeling will show, the best antenna, bar none, for local work is a dipole at about 65' or so, depending on location and cornditions.   A dipole at 1/2 wavelength high (130'-150' on 75M) will actually be down 15-20db locally because of the suppressed energy in the higher angles. And inversely, the high dipole will usually take the low dipole by 10db to even 15db for DX over 1500 to 2,000 miles away, again, depending on cornditions. It's all about the vertical take-off angle.

When I switch in the high loops at 190' for the west coast, sometimes the locals have trouble copying me when cornditions stretch out.

That's why, when possible, two antennas are needed for optimum coverage for local and DX. If only ONE antenna is available, then a dipole at 90' is hard to beat - the best of both whirls.


So guys with dipoles at ~60' high can rest assured that they have made the very best effort possible for local 75M strap work... 8)

T


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: Opcom on August 01, 2010, 02:54:31 PM
Yeah... there's no need to be courteous to someone who's signal doesn't measure up to the standards.





I take that as macabre humor. If I had  nickel for every time I got run over because of the antennaless station, I'd just retire. I can get FB results with psk31 using only 100W PEP but ssb is difficult at best and AM gets me nothing. AM is my dummy load mode, for lab measurement pleasure only. I take this all as a challenge and a fun part of the hobby.

Of note, one more section of tower is up and all 4 10FT guy deadmen are now concreted, as well as one of the dipole deadmen. It is 103 degrees here.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: Todd, KA1KAQ on August 01, 2010, 06:09:29 PM
So guys with dipoles at ~60' high can rest assured that they have made the very best effort possible for local 75M strap work... 8)

Even with my somewhat-lower dipole, A couple nights I was the channel master. Rich-a-roni would insist I was parked nearby. And I was by no means the strongest rig or best ant on the band. Some nights it just depended which way the wind blew, apparently.  ;D

Of course, the other 99.9% of the time, the real signals ruled.  For me at least, listening to the guys over the years provided incentive to build the 'perfect' station. An unrealistic goal I still strive for today.



Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: K1JJ on August 01, 2010, 06:41:41 PM
For me at least, listening to the guys over the years provided incentive to build the 'perfect' station. An unrealistic goal I still strive for today.

Well, you've certainly assembled some impressive AM hardware, OM... ;)   The alligators down your way will certainly know who you are soon.

I'll bet the guys here would love to see a listing of the stuff you have that is about to go online and even what you sold off recently....  drool time.

T


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: K5UJ on August 01, 2010, 11:24:23 PM
<<<Of course, the other 99.9% of the time, the real signals ruled.  For me at least, listening to the guys over the years provided incentive to build the 'perfect' station. An unrealistic goal I still strive for today. >>>

Well I think we all do the best we can with what we got, put the dipole up as high as we can even if it's only 50 feet, make all the feedline and wire with low resistance stuff, link coupled tuner, lotsa audio, lotsa density (en den we bring da power grid to its knees wid da juice haw haw haw >:( >:( >:(


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: Todd, KA1KAQ on August 04, 2010, 11:52:57 AM
I'll bet the guys here would love to see a listing of the stuff you have that is about to go online and even what you sold off recently.... 

Sorry for the delay in responding, T. Busy with the BA tractor.

I've posted some shots of the current radio room and equipment to be used, so folks are probably sick of seeing it.

The stuff that has gone down the road is another matter. Makes me take a look in the mirror and think 'WTF were you thinking????' Not so much for getting rid of it, but for getting it in the first place. I mean, all that work just to send it down the road later? The big rigs that left include:

- Johnson Viking 'Desk' KW (went to CA)

- BC-610E (went to Maine)

- Wilcox 99A (went to NY)    http://jptronics.org/radios/Military/JANAP161/an.frt/an.frt-type.99a.pdf

- RA-1000 (went to Maine)

- Johnson Viking 'Desk' KW (went to PA)

Also had one of those big-ass GE low band VHF repeaters (included with the 610, had to take it as part of the deal). Ironically, it went to the buyer of the 610. And a 6' homebrew transmitter than was given to Brian W1LYD (then N1HUT) when he was first building up his station. It was loaded with great parts but looked like it was built by Stevie Wonder.

Some will recall most of the gear being listed here, including the RA-1000 with 20 spare 833s and 20 spare 845s. This is the rig I went to Elizabeth City NC to save from the bulldozer, then ended up parting with it when the move became reality. It ended up in Gray, Maine at the QTH of John N1MMD 'Mystery Meat Dinnah'.

Skip K7YOO had a good dissertation here on the Wilcox. That was another interesting rig that is seldom seen. He described my listing by saying "It amazes me how much "round tuit" stuff is starting to see daylight!!"

That's the key. If you're not going to get to it in the near future, send it to someone who (hopefully) will get to it. It lifts a lot of weight (literally and figuratively) off your shoulders and frees you up to focus in the gear you really want to use now. Not sure if I should be pleased with myself for having saved the stuff or ashamed for letting it sit around, but the end result is less stuff here.  ;D




Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: k4kyv on August 04, 2010, 12:25:02 PM
If you're not going to get to it in the near future, send it to someone who (hopefully) will get to it.

And, of course, there are the $30,000 KW-1s sitting in somebody's trophy room as museum pieces, probably never to see lighted filaments again.  When the owner goes SK, who knows what will happen when his survivors dispose of the radio "junk" that had cluttered up the house all those years...


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: Todd, KA1KAQ on August 04, 2010, 01:46:08 PM
That is pretty sad, Don. Especially when you consider all but 20 or so of the original 152 have been accounted for and all but a couple of those survive. Mine gets used regularly, between zorch outs, of course.

Of course, the other possibility is that as the trophy collectors kick off, at least a few are bound to surface and become available for short money. Trophy collectors tend to brag and show of regularly, so someone around them will likely have some idea of value. But the users out there who have just had the transmitter around for years either in use or collecting dust, well...that's another matter.

The question is - will anyone be left to pick them up? It's not like amateur radio was ever a large segment of the population.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: K5UJ on August 04, 2010, 03:38:30 PM
One thing I can safely predict is that the KW-1s ain't gg to get any $30K again.

Anyone else notice that BA gear on eBay lately isn't even meeting the reserve prices?


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: K9PNP on August 05, 2010, 11:09:40 AM
Anyone else notice that BA gear on eBay lately isn't even meeting the reserve prices?

Probably because of the current 'recession' and/or the fact that most of the people in the hobby for the last 20 years don't understand or want to mess with tubes.  May be an 'age' thing, but probably an education and backgound thing.  Add to these the shipping problems and you have a decrease in purchasing.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: K1JJ on August 05, 2010, 11:25:00 AM
As far as AM commercial gear and boatanchors, looks like the baby boomers may have gotten their fill, and the acccumulation trend has peaked out. Most are complacent with what they have now - I know I am. The next phase is selling some off to lighten the load.

Usually the best stuff goes last, so maybe the rare, high priced, quality AM stuff will hold out a little longer, though this recession/deflation and internet age is like the perfect ham-economic-storm when combined with the generation age peak.

It will eventually get to the point where Valiants and Rangers are selling for $50 each (or the equivalent inflation/deflation adjusted $50) like in the 70's - but still nobody wants them. It must go that way when we OT's die off, cuz who will be there to lug the stuff away? The supply will greatly outstrip the small demand.  Plus, when less AMers are on the air, the remaining ones will start to get bored and go away too. That's what happens to OB's when their friends all die off. They just stop coming around.

Bottom line? The good news:  ENJOY what we have now, cuz these ARE the good old days of AM.   How many days of action, flea markets and ham fun do we have left, anyway?  Party like it's 1999!

T


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: k4kyv on August 05, 2010, 12:06:37 PM
The down side is that as prices on the stuff tank, a lot of it will start going to the landfill again.

I think the golden age for purchasing this stuff was during the mid to late 80's. That was the era when old time hams who were active in the 20s-30s-40s were dropping like flies, but their old stuff was considered "junk" and didn't bring in much, if anything at estate sales.  Roger, N4IBF(SK), Mike NI4N (now W4AAE) and myself discovered several real treasure troves of pre-WW2 parts, books and equipment. Several of them were ours for the taking, in exchange for simply hauling them off. Others, we had to pay the estate for what we took home, but prices were usually very reasonable and often would be considered downright theft to-day. Loads of goodies showed up at hamfests like Dayton, although the golden age for hamfest purchases was a little earlier, in the 70s, when many of the OTs were still alive and able to haul their excessive inventory to flea markets, and the "vintage" craze hadn't caught on in mainstream amateur radio yet.

In about 1981-82 I picked up two working 75A-4s, one for $200 and another, with all 3 stock filters, for $100.  They needed some work, but I still have and use them.  Unfortunately, I suspect that for every one of those treasure troves we discovered, 100 others went to the dump.  By the time the antique/vintage craze caught on and went mainstream, it was too late; most of those OTs and their collections of stuff were long gone.  The resulting scarcity is largely what drove the prices on that kind of stuff sky high.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: K1JJ on August 05, 2010, 12:30:12 PM
The down side is that as prices on the stuff tank, a lot of it will start going to the landfill again.

I think the golden age for purchasing this stuff was during the mid to late 80's. That was the era when old time hams who were active in the 20s-30s-40s were dropping like flies, but their old stuff was considered "junk" and didn't bring in much, if anything at estate sales.   Loads of goodies showed up at hamfests like Dayton, although the golden age for hamfest purchases was a little earlier, in the 70s, when many of the OTs were still alive and able to haul their excessive inventory to flea markets, and the "vintage" craze hadn't caught on in mainstream amateur radio yet.

 By the time the antique/vintage craze caught on and went mainstream, it was too late; most of those OTs and their collections of stuff were long gone.  The resulting scarcity is largely what drove the prices on that kind of stuff sky high.

Some very insightful comments above, Don.

Yes, I agree that the timing of the  "Great OT Sell Off" and subsequent rise in prices due to scarcity had its effect. Good points.

T


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: WA3VJB on August 05, 2010, 06:14:39 PM
There are parallels in the vintage car hobby.

World War Two has traditionally been a generational divide, with pre-war and post-war collector audiences vastly different in character.  

Postwar cars have further sub-divided into those before the "muscle" car, and those that followed until anti-smog controls were imposed.

See if this 2005 posting to a car blog might easily apply to our stuff here.

Quote
In the 1970s and into the early 1980s the big news in classic cars were pre-war classics --Auburn, Packard, Duesenberg, Cord, Pierce Arrow, etc. etc. But the generation of folks who, in their youth, had admired that genre of car went into retirement--they could not or would not spend that kind of money anymore.  What happened? Those cars lost a great deal  of value on the market.  Most of those rides have since regained value, but in many cases they pale compared to muscle cars.  Again, that's because most of the folks who lusted after a V-16 Cadillac or a Darrin bodied Packard are dead.  As the baby boomers retire and find themselves with less and less discretionary income, the demand and price of muscle cars will adjust accordingly.  

Read more: http://forums.motortrend.com/70/48104/motor-trend-classic/do-you-think-the-collector-car-market-will-crash/index.html#ixzz0vlvZt4Mg




This old guy lives near West Friendship where I grew up.  He's still banging the tire irons, just turned 90 this Spring, and hopes to restore this 1908 beauty "some day."


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: Todd, KA1KAQ on August 05, 2010, 08:42:08 PM
It will eventually get to the point where Valiants and Rangers are selling for $50 each (or the equivalent inflation/deflation adjusted $50) like in the 70's - but still nobody wants them. It must go that way when we OT's die off, cuz who will be there to lug the stuff away? The supply will greatly outstrip the small demand.  Plus, when less AMers are on the air, the remaining ones will start to get bored and go away too. That's what happens to OB's when their friends all die off. They just stop coming around.

It's a relief to see someone else say this, Tom. I've been warning folks for years that the 'investment' aspect of old radios was a bad route to go, and this is what was waiting around the corner. Many of the money-oriented types always referred to ebay as the market price vs. the high water mark which was always my contention. For several years now, prices have been sliding. The economy has some impact, but it's much more a case of as you say, folks getting their fill combined with zero demand following behind. PJP and I have had some lengthy discussions about this, how many hamfest seasons we have left (based on how many summers does the average person get to enjoy, and how many do you have left?). I think it started when someone gave him grief for daring to build an unbuilt Knight kit.

We're of the same mind: use it and enjoy it now. How many folks 40-50 years from now will even know what it is, much less care? If you bought your gear to use and enjoy, you'll never be disappointed. If you got it as a retirement account, you might want to look for a second job.

Unfortunately, I suspect that for every one of those treasure troves we discovered, 100 others went to the dump.  By the time the antique/vintage craze caught on and went mainstream, it was too late; most of those OTs and their collections of stuff were long gone.  The resulting scarcity is largely what drove the prices on that kind of stuff sky high.

That's probably more true for some of the less exciting/more common stuff, Don. But look at how many Heathkit rigs still survive, DX-100s, Apaches, and so on. And Hallicrafters S-38s are the cockroaches of the radio world - they're everywhere!  ;D

One thing I've noticed with the higher end gear is that much seems to survive in good or better condition. Folks who could afford Collins or Johnson or TMC gear tended to take good care of it. And fortunately, the gap between the original owners and new owners wasn't so long as to send it to the scrap heap, though surely some met this fate. Unfortunately this isn't so for much of the pre-war gear and parts. It exists, but in small numbers, especially in clean condition.

In three-plus decades, I've seen exactly one hacked up 75A-4, a 310 exciter painted blue, a 32V with its glass broken, and a few dinged up pieces of S-Line gear. Actually, I've seen and heard more horror stories of gear damaged in shipment than by former owners.

The only benefit aside from us being able to enjoy having our hands on such history now is that so many will survive at least a while longer, for anyone who comes along and actually wants one. Pickings should be pretty good.



Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: Ralph W3GL on August 05, 2010, 11:48:17 PM


       I thought this  thread was about "Silent Carriers that Answer CQ"... What happened to the
                                                      SUBJECT?




Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: KX5JT on August 06, 2010, 02:17:27 AM
Ah what the heck... we're in the QSO section so let the topic roam! 


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: k4kyv on August 06, 2010, 02:48:08 AM
Unfortunately, I suspect that for every one of those treasure troves we discovered, 100 others went to the dump.  By the time the antique/vintage craze caught on and went mainstream, it was too late; most of those OTs and their collections of stuff were long gone.  The resulting scarcity is largely what drove the prices on that kind of stuff sky high.

That's probably more true for some of the less exciting/more common stuff, Don. But look at how many Heathkit rigs still survive, DX-100s, Apaches, and so on. And Hallicrafters S-38s are the cockroaches of the radio world - they're everywhere!  ;D

One thing I've noticed with the higher end gear is that much seems to survive in good or better condition. Folks who could afford Collins or Johnson or TMC gear tended to take good care of it. And fortunately, the gap between the original owners and new owners wasn't so long as to send it to the scrap heap, though surely some met this fate. Unfortunately this isn't so for much of the pre-war gear and parts. It exists, but in small numbers, especially in clean condition.

I have little interest in stuff like Heathkit rigs and 50s-era Hallicrafters.  I was referring particularly to rare pre-WW2 gear and parts, and good quality post-war stuff too like, for example, the Collins 10B exciter. Most of the old parts and homebrew projects, unique items that are essentially unobtanium to-day, were thrown out by the tonne because to the unknowledgeable survivors of the SK hams it looked  like "junk". Those were the kinds of treasure troves I was referring to. I don't think we picked up a single working transmitter or receiver in all those loads, but my share of what we hauled back helped me to accumulate enough "junk" in my own collection that I can now build practically anything I want with parts on hand.

One accumulation, which required two trips from here to Indiana to haul back, was given to us by the wife of the ham who, while not SK, was in a nursing home with a severe case of dementia.  She told us that she had managed to sell the "good" stuff, including his 75A-4 and some kind of slopbucket transceiver, with the help of some of the  local radio club yokels.  But she said they told her, regarding to the parts and homebrew items (that required a large closed U-haul trailer to transport), "nobody is interested in that kind of old stuff any more.  The best thing to do with it is to find someone with a truck to haul it all to the dump for you." Fortunately, she found us before she found someone local with the truck.  But no doubt in hundreds of other cases like that, the wife did find someone with a truck. This was the place where I literally mined over two dozen brand new VT4C/211s out of the ground where the floor had collapsed and the boards, along with the tube boxes, had  rotted and turned to soil.  All but one or two of the tubes worked like new. The items we brought back included everything from bread slicers and plate transformers to antique meters, NIB plug-in coils and triode transmitting tubes.

This is what I was lamenting. The radio equivalent to the old guy's automotive accumulation in the photos Paul posted above. I couldn't care much less about the DX-100's, Valiants and Hallicrafters SX-99s.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on August 06, 2010, 09:20:19 AM
How long can we talk about carriers that we can't even hear?



       I thought this  thread was about "Silent Carriers that Answer CQ"... What happened to the
                                                      SUBJECT?





Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: W2ZE on August 06, 2010, 09:41:11 AM
Quote
How long can we talk about carriers that we can't even hear?

(In a whispering voice)....STRAP.......


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: Todd, KA1KAQ on August 06, 2010, 12:03:02 PM
(STRAP)  ;D

Okay Ralph, you busted us. At some point the thread drifted, though it doesn't appear to be a true hi-jack. The carriers are still here, you just can't hear them.

I was referring particularly to rare pre-WW2 gear and parts, and good quality post-war stuff too like, for example, the Collins 10B exciter. Most of the old parts and homebrew projects, unique items that are essentially unobtanium to-day, were thrown out by the tonne because to the unknowledgeable survivors of the SK hams it looked  like "junk".

You must mean the 310B exciter. The A was built for the original 30K transmitters, the B was actually a QRP transmitter with a 2E26 IIRC. There were a couple different versions of the B, one with tuning network built in and the other with a removable plate that let you roll your own. The C is basically a VFO that plugs into a crystal socket. These boxes were never made in high numbers to start with. I recall when the Collins Collecting fad really took off in the late 80s-90s, many of the high rollers were looking for these units to "complete their collection". I suspect most are still sitting on shelves somewhere.

Yes, a lot of the unobtanium pieces - the pre-war as well as WWII stuff - got dumped when ops went SK 4-5 decades ago. More hit the skids in the 60s-70s when the masses migrated to riceboxes and SSB, too. Nobody wanted 'boat anchors' then and you were looked at strangely if you wanted anything like that. I talked to a number of OTs who joked about how much stuff they could've loaded me up with if I'd only been 10-20 years earlier.
Quote
One accumulation, which required two trips from here to Indiana to haul back, was given to us by the wife of the ham who, while not SK, was in a nursing home with a severe case of dementia. 

The first bunch I cleaned out in the early 80s was a similar case: the OT apparently put the cat in the fridge and was watering his plants with milk, so they moved him to 'more secure' housing. He lived in a big old Victorian, was a broadcast engineer, ham, and had also worked for Evans Radio as a sales rep for many years. He kept EVERYTHING including old literature. The auctioneer the family had hired told them that two wooden radios (RCA tombstone and AK console) were worth auctioning, the rest was junk. I ended up with a AK Radiodyne, Aeriola Sr, Hallicrafters SR-150, S-27 and loads of tubes, parts, and paper. QSTs back into the 20s, amateur sales brochures, and broadcast literature galore. Big phasing switches for broadcast aerials, a box of RCA 74B ribbon mics - all headed for the dump. Stuff wasn't 'valuable' then, but I still think I got it cheap and the son (also a BC engineer) thought I was nuts to want any of it. Ended up trading the SR-150 for my 30K-5 a couple years later ("who would want THAT behemoth?"). The literature ended up being a treasure trove of old product flyers, catalogs, and other documentation. I remember one of the guys from the local club who helped me load it continually saying "you don't want to take that stuff". Fortunately the only things he managed to talk me out of taking were some old rotating mercury rocker switches used as flashers on tower beacons. Sure wish I'd grabbed at least one.

The next round is soon to begin, if it hasn't already. Many of us will be future contributors unless we've made other plans before we truly become.....Silent Carriers......


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: k4kyv on August 06, 2010, 12:48:26 PM
I had already developed a keen interest it that kind of stuff in the early 60s shortly after I became licensed, but that was just before the "sideband for the masses" era, and a lot of the OTs who were still alive still attached some value to it. I was a practically-penniless student back then, and had to pass up a lot of goodies because they were out of my price range even when they sold for pennies on the dollar. Later on, when the same items that I had to pass up were being hauled to the dump, I was out of the country for the better part of a decade and missed out on a lot of it. However, the early 80's was probably even a better time for the stuff like Todd mentioned, because that's when the pre-WW2 ham generation was dropping like flies, kind of like the WW2 vets 5-10 years ago and Korean War vets to-day, and survivors were cleaning out cellars, lofts and storage sheds that hadn't been touched for decades. I'm sure a lot of nice stuff went to the dump simply because it was covered with dust, mouse and rat turds, dead critters and spider webs, making it look like rubbish to the unknowledgeable.

The obstacle that kept me from accumulating even more in the mid 80's was the fact that so much of it was too far away to drive and even if I could have located it, it would have been too expensive to ship, plus I was working full time and my time was limited, as was (is) storage space. Of course, the greatest obstacle to acquiring "stuff" is finding out about it before it is trashed. I couldn't count the number of times someone has told me they would have been glad to give me something but they didn't think anyone would want it and they had taken it to the dump two weeks earlier.

If I had been independently wealthy, I would have built or purchased a large warehouse and a suitable vehicle, and scoured the entire N American continent.  I probably could have become a serious competitor for Fair Radio but kept the cream of the goodies for myself.


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: K5UJ on August 06, 2010, 07:43:03 PM
This is all somewhat depressing.  I certainly hope everyone on this website makes arrangements so their stuff does not go to the dump.   I don't have a lot compared to a lot of you guys but I have been blessed with a few good parts and pieces of gear falling into my lap.  I didn't really seek any of the stuff out, it all came down to knowing people and being in the right place at the right time.  And going to a few hamfests.  Re the pre WW2 gear, I sort of draw the quality line at 1952.  There were some good rigs after '52 but you have to be more careful (some of this is based on personal irrational opinion however).


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: KF1Z on August 06, 2010, 08:38:08 PM
Just put updated price tags/values on all your gear......

Rest assured, non of it will go in the trash!

Sure, some greedy relative, that doesn't give a hoot about radio or the "nostalgia" will just turn it over for a quick buck... but at least it won't rot in  a landfill!

 ;D


Title: Re: Silent Carriers that Answer CQ
Post by: Todd, KA1KAQ on August 06, 2010, 10:12:44 PM
It's worth a try Bruce, but when the stuff doesn't sell for that price (or any price), they might be tempted to sell it for scrap. Who knows what scrap metal prices will be in 20-40 years? Maybe recycled iron and steel will be at a premium. We've already seen some foolish antics over high copper prices in recent years.

Rob - it's only depressing if you let it stop you from enjoying your gear now. I lost nearly a dozen years from being inactive, relegated to SWL duty while life took me elsewhere. Now THAT is depressing, I can never get tha time back. But I sure can make better use of whatever radio time I get from here on out.

Don, I was in the same mode as you, actually interested in the old radio gear a good 6-8 years before getting licenses. That's where my deep love of AM broadcast, early broadcast and pre-war gear comes from. When so much of the 50s-60s stuff became available in the 80s for virtually nothing, I got distracted by the ease of acquiring and operating it. As things thin out here and my time is better managed, it feels good to get back in touch with the early stuff. Like an old friend who's been around for years but just hasn't spent much time with you.

In the end, the essential truth is that this gear is really only important to us. WE are the ones who place value in it, be it monetary, historic, or nostalgic. Aside from storing it all away in some time capsule warehouse where it gets found by curious folks well into the future, it will pretty much live and die with us and those who went before us.

AMfone - Dedicated to Amplitude Modulation on the Amateur Radio Bands