Sidetone frequency

GM0WEZ

Super Member
Jul 29, 2020
119
1
16
750-850 Hz was historically recommended, but a 1990 Technical Topics casts doubt on this!

Ten ops were asked what their preferred sidetone frequency was, and they then set the BFO to what they thought was this frequency by ear.

Six said they preferred a frequency of 750Hz, but they actually set the BFO to around 500Hz!

Three said they preferred 600-7000 Hz - and they set the BFO to 475Hz.

One (who had musical training) said he preferred 500Hz, and set his BFO to within 50Hz of this frequency.

When sent fast-ish (25wpm) morse, the ops tended to adjust the BFO to give a slightly higher pitch (around 600Hz).

Maybe 500-600 Hz is the sweet spot.



 
Interesting article.

I learnt morse (at age 62) on LCWO.net (on which you set the sidetone digitally). I started at 800 Hz because I'd heard that recommended somewhere. I then built a QCX radio that has a fixed sidetone of 700 Hz (yes, you can adjust it but there are complications to doing so).

I then moved to morse-over-internet where, again, you set your sidetone digitally. So I set it to the same 700 Hz as the QCX.

Finally, my next (and present) radio is a Xiegu G90. This is an SDR radio and so you set the sidetone digitally. It is (not surprisingly) set to 700 Hz.

So I've never had to set my sidetone by ear - I've always just dialled up a number. But having read that article, I'm tempted to try a rather lower frequency. Would forum members encourage or discourage me to do that?
 
It would have been interesting if the TT article included the age of the operators.

Everybody develops age related hearing loss (presbyacusis). On the audiogram this has a typical appearance of high tone hearing loss. This is worse as frequency rises, often can be 60dB down above 4kHz. But there is some loss at lower frequencies and I wonder if this effects preference.

This is a scientific question which can be answered by experiment. Do a RufzXP run at 750Hz and record score. Repeat at 500Hz. Then do the 750Hz one again and continue to alternate. Average out maybe 10 scores on each and see.

 
I've just had a QSO with one of those old Australian telegraph operators (on CWCOM). I asked him what sidetone frequency he had set. He didn't know what "sidetone" was! I got him to look at the settings and it was 755 Hz - quite high according to the internet wisdom given that he must be in his 80's. When I mentioned about age-related hearing loss, he just said he turned the volume up. He reckons I'm over-thinking the sidetone thing.

Interestingly, his sending is not that fast - must be in the high teens - but it is fairly accurate and has a nice steady pace, which makes it easy to copy. He uses a straight key for morse-over-the-internet but a bug for landline telegraphy because of the greater tolerances with a direct copper wire connection (whatever that means). I don't think he's ever done radio.

As an experiment, I've dropped my sidetone frequency from 700 Hz to 600 Hz. I don't find it any better but I do have to have the volume up a bit higher if there's any ambient noise in the Man Cave (the lower frequency doesn't seem to cut through the clutter as well). The lower frequency is easier on the ear though - less strident, less insistent.
 
You need to remember that although there may be some change in the response of the human ear depending upon age and frequency, I'm pretty sure the volume variations caused by the changes in the response/efficiency of the equipment used to produce the audio tone will have a much more marked effect on the levels.

Changes in resonance caused by case volume, positioning, and materials used all add to these effects. I have three sound level meters here that I use from time to time when setting up equipment. I once tested a Datong Morse Tutor at various tone frequencies (the tutor had a balanced armature speaker, not the piezo type sometimes used in the later models), and I found a number of points where the tone coincided with the resonance (or overtones) of the speaker and caused increases of 10-15dB at least at those peaks over the response at other 'dead' frequencies.

Also, when you approached the resonant frequency of the speaker the output level would rise rapidly over a 50Hz or so range.

Ideally you need to use a studio quality amplifier with a flat response from say 20Hz-20KHz, and a studio quality speaker (a studio monitor speaker), also designed to have an extremely flat response, before you really judge the effects of various side tone pitches.

But, even with the above equipment you would only at best be reproducing a standard hearing test! To my mind it makes no odds what the levels are set to, the important things to look out for are:-

1) Is the tone chosen more 'restful' or 'pleasant' to the ears?

2) Does you ability to copy CW improve at the newly chosen pitch and also is it less fatiguing?

At times I drop the pitch of my pocket MFJ tutor down quite low, sometimes only just above 300Hz (the minimum setting for the pitch), for no reason other than it is more restful to listen to for extended periods. I did test to see if my copy speed improved, but it seemed pretty much the same at the time I tried it..

Side tone pitch arguments are like arguments about the best way to hold a key, or the best methods of paddle key operation, and so on. They rage on and on but at the end of the day it's down to what works for YOU. Trial and error shows us that some things may work better than others for us, but obviously not for everyone. Just the same as tastes in music, colour preferences etc.

Sometimes I think that maybe we're all looking for some magic Morse panacea, but with how many hundreds of thousands of op's that have gone before us you would think that one of them would have stumbled across this 'magic' by now.

Just a thought...

:w:
 
Ham4CW said:
Sometimes I think that maybe we're all looking for some magic Morse panacea...

We sure are.
For most people, Morse is tough to learn - it takes ridiculous amounts of time and energy, and endless repetition. It's a skill that fades too, so you have to keep at it or lose all that investment. How wonderful it would be to stumble across the 'magic' technique that makes it all happen today.
 
Some of the 'difficulties' might still be down to our own subconscious though.

Many years ago I got chatting with a colleague, and it turned out he had previously worked for Interpol.

He was telling me that there minimum test speed requirement was 25wpm. I said that the Amateur one was (at the time in the UK), 12wpm. I also mentioned that many would be CW op's would reach a kind of plateau in their learning and get 'stuck' at around 8-9wpm for ages before finally breaking through some hidden mental barrier.

He seemed surprised at this, but did say that their (Interpol) operators very often got stuck around 17-18wpm while learning Morse.

It struck me then that both groups had gotten 'stuck' at a speed that was say 2/3 to 3/4 of their final target.

Maybe we need to aim higher, much much higher!

Again, just another thought...

:w:
 
I find I prefer around 600Hz, much higher and I find it sounds too "strident" to be comfortable for any length of time.

I also find that lower frequencies seem to sound less chirpy on the dits, which I think is more pleasant, but it's like anything else, what's pleasant and comfortable for me isn't for someone else. Interesting take on the age thing though, there might be something in that.

One thing I have noticed is that I'm tolerant of a higher sidetone frequency when using a loudspeaker than when using headphones. Not sure why that is, but I've definitely noticed that, and as I prefer to use headphones, I tend to keep the sidetone between 550 and 600Hz.
 
foggycoder said:
For most people, Morse is tough to learn - it takes ridiculous amounts of time and energy, and endless repetition.

We've wandered off the Subject a bit but I'm glad to hear you say this. Those who promote CW are not always so clear about this, so I think many who try quit too soon thinking they are the exception. I'm in that boat right now, I've already practiced a great deal but it's still darn hard to copy. Back to it then!

73
 

About us

  • Our ham radio community has been around for many years and pride ourselves on offering unbiased discussion among radio enthusiasts of all backgrounds. We work hard to make sure our community is one of the best.

Quick Navigation

User Menu