Re: Questionable practice..?

jtart Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have noticed elsewhere (not on this site)
> certain listeners posting "logs" hours after the
> alleged reception, usually stating that it was a
> "SDR catch". What this translates to is that the
> listener did not actually hear the station; their
> receiver did.

Hi John.

That's first para's and the line following were a bit of a mis-statetment, methinks. Before the 'net became ubiquitous a report would have no time critical on-the-air value to an op because it arrived by USPS, possibly a month or more after the actual broadcast. Mebbe a phone call in real time at best.

The drift net technique of listening is here, like it or not. SDRs are replacing conventional radios whether we like it or not. Besides, an SDR catch is largely the same (with one significant difference) as the hard core enthusiast who might run multiple receivers and tape recorders to ensure he doesn't miss something.

Would a guy with a couple of R-75s and cassette recorders be guilty of not observing the "spirit", for want of a better word, of pirate listening?

What about a guy using a 'net connected radio in, say, Holland, from the US to catch a Euro be a cheater? After all, he was operating the radio and he did hear it in real time...

The SDR user is merely time shifting his listening a bit - mebbe if he's asleep and doesn't listen to the file for weeks after that might be a tad iffy, but otherwise if he's doing it because he only has one set of ears to listen with and there's a lot of activity? After all, he still tunes the band and has to figure out how best to demodulate that noisy snippet of RF.

It's just another tool we have for enjoying our hobby, is all. There are a bunch of ways of listening now and we have to try to get used to them. And figure out how to reconcile the contradictions they bring with them.

What say?