What is a proper
I received the
above E-mail QSL from Radio Mosoj Chaski, but Mr Porter does not
really know on the moment what is a QSL.
Just a short note to acknowledge the reception of your message
reporting that you have been able to hear Radio Mosoj Chaski.
I'm new at all of this - so request your patience as I try to
learn about QSL cards, etc. If you would care to orient me on
this I would very much appreciate that."
So drop him a line, and explain him what is a QSL, so we can receive
in the future QSL's for our reception reports from this station.
I sent them this info in my repception report:
"Detalles de la programación: Presentación por
una locutor y una locutora, el programa en Quechua o Aymara. Ustedes
anunciaron el nombre de la emisora a las 2100 - el programa fin
- horas con las siguientes palabras "RADIO MOSOJ CHASKI... 3310
KHZ....BANDA DE 90 METROS".
DXer on hcdx list, May 1998
Fine QSL, worse
I would dare
say that the e-mail QSL from Radio Mosoj Chaski is a verification
a lot better than most would accept.
However, I do doubt that the details stated actually proves beyond
a reasonable doubt that the logger has heard this station.
This info could simply be put together by anyone, as any station,
just as Mosoj Chaski, certainly would be using this info regularly
all the time.
So what would it prove?
By Scandinavian DXing standards this is not an acceptable reception
report. By these standards there has to be more specific programming
Anyone not agreeing?
Hermod Pedersen, Sweden, 12 May
1999, hcdx list
Pedersen wrote: I doubt that the stated Radio Mosoj Chaski details
proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the logger had heard this
ID with the dots at the same place was published by myself via
hcdx some days before.
Pedersen wrote: By Scandinavian DXing standards this is not an
acceptable reception report.
Just so by German
Schnitzer, Germany, 13 May 1999, hcdx list
Pedersen wrote: By Scandinavian DXing standards there has to be
more specific programming details included.
Yes I agree.
A reception report must contain specific programme details that
can verify that you were listening to the station or it must include
a good, precise description of what was being hear.
I find myself increasingly using reception reports with no or hardly
any details - but then including a cassette tape recording of the
station for 1-3 minutes. It's a bit more expensive and the chances
of the report reaching the addressee is probably slighly less good
than with ordinary envelopes - but it's a lot faster for me to prepare
If reception is good and there are a couple of goods clear programme
details - then I will use the "usual" reception report with the
writtem programme details.
Having been a v/s myself for stations like Radio Viking, Quality
AM, Radio ABC/Denmark, Radio Station EDXC 95 and World Music Radio
- I appreciate taped reception reports.
It's very easy to slam the cassette tape into your cassette deck
and listen for a few seconds (if youre busy) and to determine -
oh yes that's our radiostation.
Btw - as a v/s I also appreciate reports written on A4 sheets -
with a typewriter or pc. Including a sticker (label) with ones own
name and adress is an excellent idea.
What I generally dislike is some of the reports handwritten on a
tiny piece of paper (A5 and smaller) or even on a number of small
pieces of paper - some of it very hard to read.
Hartvig Nielsen, Denmark, 13 May 1999, hcdx list
detail is enough
The Finnish DX-Association published a couple of years ago a pamphlet
for beginners in Finland. It was said that every report must contain
at least three (3) 100% sure programme details which can be checked
against the station log-book.
I don't understand from where this 'three' (3) is coming from.
My view is that every report must contain at least one (1) verifiable
programme detail (full station-identification, advertisement,
name of program, name of DJ or news reader, local news item etc.
Mäntylä, Finland, 12 May 1999, hcdx list
Add more than
Mäntylä wrote: My view is that every report must contain
at least one (1) verifiable programme detail.
I have also been wondering about those 3 "exact" details. Maybe
it was useful way back in the 50's and 60's without tape recorder.
But never mind, I think you have a better chance of receiving
QSLs if you can comment on the program as much as possible, and
to be in that position you need a lot of program details to start
I find it more easy today to gather exact and fine program details,
because many stations broadcast network program, but at certain
times they have local breaks with lots of good stuff to put in
On the other hand, many DX-ers are complaining about the quality
of other DXer's reports. I think this is a little bit strange
and unnecessary. Seldom do QSL-letters state how bad or how fine
a report was.
So if you want to tell your friends about your findings then you
must add something else; i.e. logs of stations you hear, recordings
of their IDs, copy of your reception reports (this is by the way
a lot more valuable document telling about your improved skills
as a DXer over the years than a QSL ever can be), -- besides QSL
Stenman, 13 May 1999, hcdx list
Well, if there
is a log book
Mäntylä wrote: It was said that every report must
contain at least three (3) 100% sure programme details which
can be checked against the station log-book.
course, assumes that the station has a logbook. I've visited many
of the smaller Latin American stations and I have never seen one.
(Some big city stations do have them.) In visits to stations,
I've picked up in person over 100 QSLs for myself and DX friends.
I've *never* had a station check any report against a logbook.
That's not to say the stations don't know what they air. After
all, the station personnel do listen to their own station on a
daily basis! Everyone knows what the canned IDs sound like, what
kind of music is played at what time, what products they advertise,
But they don't know specifically that the advertisement for "Almacén
San Juan" was played on May 1, 1999 at 5:44:15 a.m., local time,
as I have seen in some reporters specify.
All they know is the ad should be played two times every morning
in the 5 to 6 a.m. show. I suspect the degree of time precision
in some reception reports amuses some rural Latin American station
Mäntylä wrote: I don't understand from where this
'three' (3) is coming from. My view is that every report must
contain at least one (1) verifiable programme detail.
I would agree.
One good detail should be sufficient, if it is specific enough.
In terms of many small stations in Latin America, though, I believe
the only way they would prevent you from getting a QSL is if your
details proved you didn't hear the station... for example, you
said you heard rock music in a time that they always play folk
Moore, USA, 13 May 1999, hcdx list
Do get that
As an avid SWL, I have been a member of this list for some time
now. I am always amazed at the posts to the list asking for help
identifying a station heard but not ID'ed. The following excerpts
from recent email to this list say it all...
I received a station broadcasting in Spanish on 6712 kHz. What
station is that? Maybe it was Peruvian?
that drives us as SWL'ers should include getting the station ID
ourselves... not soliciting help from others when either our equipment
or language limitations preclude us from determining a given station's
ago I heard an unid South American station with a very strong
signal just before sign off at 0100 UTC on 1620 kHz. Anyone
with any idea on this?
How can anyone (in all honestly) QSL a station heard if you have
to seek help from others to determine the ID. Let us not forget
the premise of this list server, according to the HCDX FAQ. It is:
"Shortwave/mediumwave listeners who try to listen to rare, weak
and previously unheard broadcasting stations."
There is nothing in the statement that suggests we should rely on
this list when we are not able to do the job ourselves.
We should all strive to stick with the weak stations and get the
ID's ourselves... then come to this list server with our personal
success stories. Let the victory be yours and yours alone.
B. Peters, Canada, 13 May 1999, hcdx list
Where do we
draw the line?
Ah, but where
do you draw the line?
B. Peters wrote: The passion that drives us as SWL'ers should
include getting the station ID ourselves... not soliciting help
from others when either our equipment or language limitations
preclude us from determining a given station's ID.
I know i have in many instances recived help from, and helped other
DXers to verify that what they or i thought was on the tape really
I find that kind of outside assistance unvaluable. If you have a
weak station, that no one have heard in your region before, then
it helps to have another set of ears verify that what you think
is the station ID really is. That have saved me from sending some
reports that would have been embarrising early in my career. And
that help has also got me some very nice stations in my QSL collection.
I cannot agree that you should do everything without help. A good
example is when me and a friend logged Radio Horizonte in Peru when
it just had started its broadcasts. Both of us knew that it was
a Peruvian, and that it was a new station, and we where quite sure
that the name was Radio Horizonte. But the help we got from outside
sources really helped us nail this one down. And to get the address
to the station, which is equally important. :)
I could quote many more examples of loggings where outside help
have helped me get that QSL. So i think outside help is good for
the DXing community. Its a good way to educate those that just have
started and thinks every logging is something rare, (im sure we
all been there more or less :) ) to the experienced that need help
to verify that it really was that rare station that they heard.
B. Peters wrote: We should all strive to stick with the weak stations
and get the ID's ourselves... then come to this list server with
our personal success stories. Let the victory be yours and yours
If we all sit
in our chambers and listen and only report the loggings that we
are shure of then the hobby of DXing will fail to evolve, or evolve
Reporting possible loggings (as probables) get others to try to
hear the same stations at the same time from the same area. In the
long run that means that DXing evolves and new openings against
other continents are discovered.
No, I dont think everything is known about propagation yet. I'm
quite sure that it isn't.
Grennefors, Sweden, 13 May 1999, hcdx list