Had solid aural copy of WV early in the 2100 UTC hour, fair copy of YSO and RF, intermittent good copy of AMA and then RVA after mid-hour (my first copy of the latter in a few months, and of the former in over a year), and eventually PCO was pretty solid copy near the end of the hour.Had hints of possible AN2, WAS, and ABBY at times, but not enough to be sure.
Second weekend in a row without a workable computer for field use...very frustrating! I realize a few folks view computers with disdain and look down on digital techniques with utter contempt, while a few won't look for beacons if they can't see results displayed on a screen. Let me be very clear that I don't fall in either camp.
I have no desire to battle the ionosphere for DX with one ear tied behind my back!
Sure, almost nobody with adequate hearing needs a computer to copy CW. And there are few feelings as satisfying as recognizing a new ID you've decoded in your own head. But if I can simultaneously study a calibrated waterfall display at QRSS speeds while listening with my own ears, then I can:
(a) gauge visually whether conditions are improving or deteriorating for a given beacon and guess when or if it's likely to reach audibility anytime soon;
(b) use keying sideband patterns to help determine which of two closely spaced beacons is dominant at a given time, in case of mutual QRM;
(c) identify the nature and/or possible sources of third-party QRM;
(d) measure actual carrier frequency much closer than can be done by ear; and,
(e) be ready on moderately short notice to make digital recordings that can be saved for QSL purposes or post-filtered for further analysis.
And those are just the advantages to using a computer as a tool to aid plain old "wetware" CW monitoring by ear!
Hardware and software of relatively modest cost and sophistication are indispensable if you want to deal with slow digital modes...not for the obvious reason that you cannot decode some modes at all without them, but also because their slow data rates honestly do make it possible to copy signals that are 10 to 30 dB farther into the noise than the ear can pick out at "normal" speeds. At the signal strength limits for 22 meters, all DX is relatively rare compared to amateur power levels. So improving one's statistical odds by 10 dB or more is entirely legitimate, both for the sake of personal gratification, and having enough samples to make more intelligent estimates of propagation over different paths. If you have samples of a signal nearly every day to work with, you can clearly draw better conclusions than you can from just one or two copies a week, or one every other month.
A few basic tools in one's kit can make anyone's limited hobby time more rewarding.