Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Why "listening" versus "CQ" ???  (Read 1176 times)

SOCAL_RADIODUDE

  • Posts: 8
    • HomeURL
Why "listening" versus "CQ" ???
« on: June 14, 2021, 09:55:48 AM »

As a longtime CW guy from the lower bands, wondering why the repeater world settles on "listening" instead of our active "CQ" ?  "Listening" just seems so passive, and besides, "CQ" is something unique, traditional and maybe even... fun... to our domain. Have tried this on repeaters and guys complain about it, which is hard to understand.

And maybe an active voice might ward off the endless repeater chunking that always seems to be with us. Thoughts ? 
Logged

K6CPO

  • Member
  • Posts: 839
Re: Why "listening" versus "CQ" ???
« Reply #1 on: June 14, 2021, 10:49:16 AM »

Somewhere, at sometime, someone decided it was inappropriate to call CQ on a repeater.  There is probably no one out there now that remembers when and where this happened.  They just go with the flow instead of being the squeaky wheel.

I agree with you. It makes no sense to me either.
Logged

AA4PB

  • Member
  • Posts: 15504
Re: Why "listening" versus "CQ" ???
« Reply #2 on: June 14, 2021, 11:07:06 AM »

Back in the early days of 2M FM it was common to call CQ just like any other band. When repeaters became available, it wasn't desirable to make a long CQ call but a simple 1X1 "CQ This is AA4PB" was normally used. To me a CQ means that you are actively looking for a contact with any station. Listening means that you just wanted to let your friends know that you are there in case someone wants to contact you.  CQ is therefore more likely to get you a contact with a station that you have not worked before.
Logged
Bob  AA4PB
Garrisonville, VA

KO4NDS

  • Posts: 12
    • HomeURL
Re: Why "listening" versus "CQ" ???
« Reply #3 on: June 14, 2021, 12:46:45 PM »

Have tried this on repeaters and guys complain about it, which is hard to understand.

I am a noob. When I got my first radio (HT) I called on the local repeater with CQ. Right away, someone replied and said I did not need to use CQ. However, I did get a response. When call "Listening", I get a response about a third of the time.

So, I am with you. CQ is an accepted standard, and everyone knows what it means. Why screw around with success?
Logged

K1QQQ

  • Member
  • Posts: 467
Re: Why "listening" versus "CQ" ???
« Reply #4 on: June 14, 2021, 01:49:31 PM »

Everybody has their 'quirks'.(is that a word?)

CQ on HF allows just listeners to hear you. (make sense?) When there were swl'ers there were also listeners. 160 meters in older days I'd get all these SWL cards from places you never thought you signal would be. (like Russia and Eastern Europe)

I don't like HAM because I don't like pigs. Choose a pig for the ultimate achievement ?

Latest little oddity are these ads in QST trying to sell Anytone radios. A picture of an older guy on some euphoria drug and the talk....All the blood, sweat and tears you spent into building your ham shack... the ultimate satisfaction of discovering DMR... You turn on your radio and hear nothing forever or nobody ever hears you. All you hear is STATIC. (on FM)

Anytone is the peak of perfection.

Hey...there's a table and you sitting in your euphoria chair... Where is the shack ? Where is the antenna farm ? All I see is an Anytone HT. One could question whether DMR is the ultimate mode but------
Logged

KK2DOG

  • Member
  • Posts: 105
Re: Why "listening" versus "CQ" ???
« Reply #5 on: June 14, 2021, 07:28:51 PM »

If someone transmits they're "listening" aren't they actually talking?
I listen frequently but choose not to announce it.
Logged

K5LXP

  • Member
  • Posts: 6823
    • homeURL
Re: Why "listening" versus "CQ" ???
« Reply #6 on: June 14, 2021, 07:56:37 PM »

I think this goes in hand with the hooey that you shouldn't have QSO's on 6.52.  Everyone is just supposed to understand that "monitoring" is equivalent to saying "CQ" but in a more sophisticated way?  My solution is to say what I want - "Anybody around for a contact" or "Could I get a signal check please" works wonders.  You can always tell the noobs, "This is KA1XYZ, monitoring", trying desperately not to screw up and say something not ARRL approved.  Sometimes I'll go back and ask what they're monitoring for, maybe I've heard it.  Nothing formal or exclusive going on 2M anywhere I've been, just get on, talk like regular people and have fun.

Mark K5LXP
Albuquerque, NM

Logged

K7MEM

  • Member
  • Posts: 1058
    • JavaScript Electronic Notebook
Re: Why "listening" versus "CQ" ???
« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2021, 01:24:35 AM »

I think this goes in hand with the hooey that you shouldn't have QSO's on 6.52.

I agree.

6.52 has been quiet for a week. You then start talking to a friend on 6.52 and someone butts in telling you that you need to move. Why? Well because this guy is monitoring 6.52 and you keep breaking the squelch. He actually in another room watching "Taxi" reruns, and the noise from the breaking squelch is annoying him.
Logged
Martin - K7MEM
http://www.k7mem.com

W9FIB

  • Member
  • Posts: 3501
    • HomeURL
Re: Why "listening" versus "CQ" ???
« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2021, 01:59:07 AM »

The way it was told to me by my Elmer way back when was that it's not so much about using CQ, but rather how you use it. On HF SSB you usually drag out a fairly long CQ so people can find you and tune you in. When you work a repeater, there is no need for that. You are already on an established listening channel as opposed to SSB where you use the VFO to go anywhere in the band and others need to find you.

As for 6.52...the 2M bandplan calls it the National Calling Freq. So some take that as a place to establish a contact and then move to another simplex freq or a repeater for the conversation. However with the amount of traffic on 2M being far less than it once was, moving now seems silly. But there was a time, mainly going back to old rock bound rigs, where this was important due to crowded conditions especially in or near large cities, and the added fact that people only got rocks for a few common used freqs.
Logged
73, Stan
Travelling the world one signal at a time.

K0UA

  • Member
  • Posts: 9589
Re: Why "listening" versus "CQ" ???
« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2021, 06:17:35 AM »

The way it was told to me by my Elmer way back when was that it's not so much about using CQ, but rather how you use it. On HF SSB you usually drag out a fairly long CQ so people can find you and tune you in. When you work a repeater, there is no need for that. You are already on an established listening channel as opposed to SSB where you use the VFO to go anywhere in the band and others need to find you.

As for 6.52...the 2M bandplan calls it the National Calling Freq. So some take that as a place to establish a contact and then move to another simplex freq or a repeater for the conversation. However with the amount of traffic on 2M being far less than it once was, moving now seems silly. But there was a time, mainly going back to old rock bound rigs, where this was important due to crowded conditions especially in or near large cities, and the added fact that people only got rocks for a few common used freqs.

^^  This explains it in detail. No need for a long drug out CQ on a Channelized frequency where you know the potential QSO partners are on that channel and will either want to talk to you or not, but a CQ call like you would make on HF won't make it any better. The long CQ call on HF is needed so that people that are tuning the band have a chance of finding you. Even with the proliferation of waterfall displays, it still takes time to see the activity and get the VFO tuned to the frequency and to copy the callsign.  A long CQ call on a 2 meter FM channel is just annoying.
Logged
73  James K0UA

G8FXC

  • Member
  • Posts: 533
Re: Why "listening" versus "CQ" ???
« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2021, 07:07:16 AM »

I think that a lot of the reason is down to the fact that the repeater is a single channel shared resource with a relatively fixed audience. We have several repeaters within range of our boat and a relatively large user population who tend to leave the rig powered up on squelch most of the day. While we are certainly not opposed to having a QSO with a stranger passing through, that is a fairly rare event. In general, I power up the rig while having breakfast and put out a "G8FXC listening through" call just to tell any of the other regulars that I'm on-line and invite a call if they want a chat or have something specific for me. I will put out other "listening" calls throughout the day - particularly if I reach a point when a conversation would be convenient - just sat down with a cup of tea, for example.

Do I call CQ? Well, sometimes - but usually either when passing through the coverage of an unfamiliar repeater or if there is a lift on and the possibility of some DX...

Martin (G8FXC)
Logged

N5PNZ

  • Member
  • Posts: 68
Re: Why "listening" versus "CQ" ???
« Reply #11 on: November 12, 2021, 04:13:33 AM »

I think that a lot of the reason is down to the fact that the repeater is a single channel shared resource with a relatively fixed audience. We have several repeaters within range of our boat and a relatively large user population who tend to leave the rig powered up on squelch most of the day. While we are certainly not opposed to having a QSO with a stranger passing through, that is a fairly rare event. In general, I power up the rig while having breakfast and put out a "G8FXC listening through" call just to tell any of the other regulars that I'm on-line and invite a call if they want a chat or have something specific for me. I will put out other "listening" calls throughout the day - particularly if I reach a point when a conversation would be convenient - just sat down with a cup of tea, for example.

Do I call CQ? Well, sometimes - but usually either when passing through the coverage of an unfamiliar repeater or if there is a lift on and the possibility of some DX...

Martin (G8FXC)


This explains it the best. ^^^^^^

 Listening /monitoring says I here, not actively seeking qso, but available.  If anyone responds I'll be glad to chat.  Gets rather annoying to only hear the repeater ID all day long.  When mobile if I see another ham, I'll make a monitoring call on 6.52 but seldom get a response.  Even the repeater "ker-chunks" are fewer than they used to be. 

Use it or lose it.
Logged

K3XR

  • Posts: 245
    • HomeURL
Re: Why "listening" versus "CQ" ???
« Reply #12 on: November 12, 2021, 05:33:14 AM »

The way it was told to me by my Elmer way back when was that it's not so much about using CQ, but rather how you use it. On HF SSB you usually drag out a fairly long CQ so people can find you and tune you in. When you work a repeater, there is no need for that. You are already on an established listening channel as opposed to SSB where you use the VFO to go anywhere in the band and others need to find you.

As for 6.52...the 2M bandplan calls it the National Calling Freq. So some take that as a place to establish a contact and then move to another simplex freq or a repeater for the conversation. However with the amount of traffic on 2M being far less than it once was, moving now seems silly. But there was a time, mainly going back to old rock bound rigs, where this was important due to crowded conditions especially in or near large cities, and the added fact that people only got rocks for a few common used freqs.

^^  This explains it in detail. No need for a long drug out CQ on a Channelized frequency where you know the potential QSO partners are on that channel and will either want to talk to you or not, but a CQ call like you would make on HF won't make it any better. The long CQ call on HF is needed so that people that are tuning the band have a chance of finding you. Even with the proliferation of waterfall displays, it still takes time to see the activity and get the VFO tuned to the frequency and to copy the callsign.  A long CQ call on a 2 meter FM channel is just annoying.

This is the best reply so far to this thread.  In brief you call CQ to give those who are looking to make a contact and tuning around a band a chance of locating your signal. On an FM repeater or simplex channel the other station(s) either is or is not listening on that frequency. 

What is not appropriate is simply showing up on the channel/frequency and stating your call.  That has absolutely no meaning.  Is it your call? Are you calling that station? Are you testing?  The logical thing to do if you are looking for a contact is simply to say..."This is K3XR listening on .52" (or similar) There is no doubt who you are and what you are trying to accomplish.

An additional comment on 146.520 being kept clear as a calling frequency.  My recollection is the ARRL pushed this use of .52.  What is beyond ironic the ARRL also pushes 146.520 for contest use?
"The ARRL Programs and Services Committee earlier this year unanimously adopted a recommendation from its VHF and Above Revitalization Committee to remove the rule prohibiting the use of 146.52 MHz simplex for making contest contacts.That change will go into effect starting on January 1"
http://www.arrl.org/news/use-of-146-52-mhz-fm-simplex-frequency-cleared-for-arrl-contests   (not sure if you need to be a member to gain access to this page)
Logged

KD2HCU

  • Posts: 61
    • HomeURL
Re: Why "listening" versus "CQ" ???
« Reply #13 on: November 12, 2021, 05:57:15 AM »

If I'm on UHF/VHF using a repeater I just say " this is kd2hcu listening on (give frequency if someone is using scanner)"  if anyone wants to chat they'll answer.  I don't have any specific reason for doing it the way I do, just the way I was taught".  As for 146.52 being used for chatting, I believe there should be a frequency set aside for calling if a weak station is in need of help.
Logged

W9FIB

  • Member
  • Posts: 3501
    • HomeURL
Re: Why "listening" versus "CQ" ???
« Reply #14 on: November 13, 2021, 02:55:52 AM »

If I'm on UHF/VHF using a repeater I just say " this is kd2hcu listening on (give frequency if someone is using scanner)"  if anyone wants to chat they'll answer.  I don't have any specific reason for doing it the way I do, just the way I was taught".  As for 146.52 being used for chatting, I believe there should be a frequency set aside for calling if a weak station is in need of help.

But if you have traffic on 146.52, don't you increase the likelihood that someone will actually hear that call for help because more stations are actually listening?
Logged
73, Stan
Travelling the world one signal at a time.
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up