Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: RufzXP High Speed Telegraphy  (Read 4352 times)
NS8Q
Member

Posts: 135




Ignore
« on: November 03, 2011, 07:45:30 AM »

In searching for the link to the Morse Runner contest simulating program, I come across the following page.

http://www.rufzxp.net/


This is the website for the RufzXP High Speed Telegraphy program which helps increase the copy speed of CW by sending call signs to the users while he/she types them into the designated field.  If the copy is 100% correct, the speed increases and if it's wrong, the speed decreases.  I think it's a great learning tool myself.

Another neat thing I found was that there are multitudes of the younger generation, competing on a global scale at speeds that I never thought imaginable.

Go to this link and then scroll down to the youngster and junior male and female sections.  For example, in the Junior Female section, their speeds range from 69 CPM (10-20 WPM) to 838 CPM (160-180 WPM).

http://www.rufzxp.net/toplist.htm

I think it's awesome that the code is still alive and in use around the world.  Not to mention they have team competitions with medals and all.  With the push in the US to pull the code requirements, I think the rest of the world is going in the right direction.

73/CHRIS


Logged
AE4RV
Member

Posts: 933


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2011, 08:21:34 AM »

I highly recommend that program. I don't like to converse much past 18 WPM but my record speed for callsigns with RufzXP is 44 WPM. Contesting is a breeze thanks to that software. Yes, it seems that high speed telegraphy is relatively popular in Europe, particularly Eastern Europe.

But, don't blame Americans for dropping the code requirement, that was basically an international thing. N2EY can re-enlighten us if he chooses too.

Good luck with RufzXP, a few minutes a day will work wonders. It doesn't help with head copy so much but it's good practice and will greatly improve your DX and contest abilities.

73,

Geoff
Logged
NS8Q
Member

Posts: 135




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2011, 08:27:25 AM »

Since it has been awhile since Field Day and last year's CW Sweeps, I was looking for the Morse Runner program to get back up to speed for this weekend.  As you probably know, once you come off of a CW contest, your speed is up there, and then several months go by, you get busy with life, and it drops.  Now we have to push it back up there again!

I'll definitely check this program out.  It's downloaded and ready to go, just need the time.

73
Chris
Logged
AE4RV
Member

Posts: 933


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2011, 08:31:50 AM »

Fortunately it doesn't take much time. It's kind of grueling as well since it constantly tries to push your envelope. My Morse Runner sessions are much longer.

After the newness wears off of RufzXP, you'll find that one five minute session a day to be quite sufficient.
Logged
AK7V
Member

Posts: 244




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2011, 10:10:01 AM »

It's a great, frustrating program.  I haven't played with it for a few years, but I remember being in the top 100 at one point.  Now I'm in 169th place. Smiley  Lots more good users now.
Logged
NI0C
Member

Posts: 2380




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2011, 11:35:45 AM »

I've noticed that my own progress with RufzXP has leveled off.  It seems that a great deal of effort is required to achieve that next "spike" to obtain a new record high score.  I'm approaching 700 practice runs in my database.  In order to motivate myself to practice, I no longer worry so much about achieving a new record.  Instead, I try with each run to raise my median score.

I also supplement my RufzXP practice with "word training" in LCWO: http://lcwo.net/

73,
Chuck  NI0C
Logged
NS8Q
Member

Posts: 135




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: November 04, 2011, 05:23:58 AM »

Last night was the first night I've tried the program and wow!!  For some reason, I stick at copying with it.  I've spent a few hours this week on Morse Runner preparing for sweeps and I'm comfortably at 25 wpm.  With RufzXP, I'm struggling to hit 20.  Maybe it's the way the program sends it or possibly the spacing of the characters.  Using MR, I have the tone set to about 500-550 Hz.  I notice the minimum tone on Rufz is 600, but the tone changes with every single callsign.  That kinda throws me off!  Has anyone else had trouble like this?
Logged
NI0C
Member

Posts: 2380




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: November 04, 2011, 05:55:58 AM »

Quote
I notice the minimum tone on Rufz is 600, but the tone changes with every single callsign.  That kinda throws me off!  Has anyone else had trouble like this?

I used to be bothered by the variable tones, but have gotten used to it.  I think the best advice I ever got was from RufzXP champion DJ1YFK, who said to stop relying on the F6 key (to repeat a callsign).  Once you do that, you commit yourself to exercising your short term memory to get the call sign the first time.  Somehow that sems to have helped me with the variable tones. 

73 & GL in SS,
Chuck  NI0C
Logged
KC9TNH
Member

Posts: 304




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: November 04, 2011, 07:22:20 AM »

After the newness wears off of RufzXP, you'll find that one five minute session a day to be quite sufficient.
With respect to maintaining proficiency this is very good advice. I don't specifically have RufzXP (no home computer) but my base (under a CWTRAIN capability built-in) will kick out alpha and/or numeric 5-char strings at whatever you set the speed of your keyer to. After the string, the display will show the correct chars. I've always set the speed a bit higher than I'm currently comfortable with. Just a few minutes a day really, but the key is REGULARLY.

Before getting on for some serious CW time I'll spend a few minutes doing a couple columns on a steno pad with this capability; it's a great warmup.
Logged

73
Wes -KC9TNH
"Don't get treed by a chihuahua." - Pete
AE4RV
Member

Posts: 933


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #9 on: November 06, 2011, 07:25:56 AM »

http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php/topic,78773.0.html
Logged
N3QE
Member

Posts: 2029




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: November 07, 2011, 08:16:39 AM »

I had long been good at conversational CW up to 40 WPM but had a hard time in the burst-style of contests.

I found RufZXP to be an excellent tool, gearing up to practice for contests. Real world callsigns are rarely as tough as the ones that RufZXP uses! Oh man, GI0EBW/VU2/QRP.

In short, while there are a lot of CW simulators/trainers out there, nothing except RufZXP comes close to the real life contest burst-type environment.

I agree with other posters about the sound of RufZXP on a computer being tougher than the sound of real keying through a radio. I don't know if it's the crappy cheap PC speakers or lack of rise time/falltime in the waveform or the absence of band noise, but it's not the tone I expect from a quality radio.
Logged
NI0C
Member

Posts: 2380




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: November 07, 2011, 08:56:52 AM »

Quote from N3QE:
Quote
I agree with other posters about the sound of RufZXP on a computer being tougher than the sound of real keying through a radio. I don't know if it's the crappy cheap PC speakers or lack of rise time/falltime in the waveform or the absence of band noise, but it's not the tone I expect from a quality radio.

My scores improved once I ditched the speaker and started using headphones.  Have you tried the adjustable "Fade in" and "Fade out" times?  After a lot of experimenting, I settled on 0.5 ms and 0.6 ms, respectively.  I also prefer the sawtooth waveform option.  (I know it doesn't sound like my radios, but it seems to help me copy better).

GL & 73,
Chuck  NI0C
Logged
N3QE
Member

Posts: 2029




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: November 07, 2011, 10:42:13 AM »

Quote from N3QE:
Quote
I agree with other posters about the sound of RufZXP on a computer being tougher than the sound of real keying through a radio. I don't know if it's the crappy cheap PC speakers or lack of rise time/falltime in the waveform or the absence of band noise, but it's not the tone I expect from a quality radio.

My scores improved once I ditched the speaker and started using headphones.  Have you tried the adjustable "Fade in" and "Fade out" times?  After a lot of experimenting, I settled on 0.5 ms and 0.6 ms, respectively.  I also prefer the sawtooth waveform option.  (I know it doesn't sound like my radios, but it seems to help me copy better).

I agree but still 0.6 ms rise/fall is incredibly short compared to typical CW waveforms. I suspect that above some speed important to the RufZXP developers that my expectations for what a CW waveform should look like, simply isn't fast enough.

I don't really like typical PC headphones either. Tinny crap. Me just getting curmudgeonly before my time :-).

Maybe I could figure out how to plug my JRC ST-3 phones into a PC. You know they list for $130 now? Wow. But worth it!
« Last Edit: November 07, 2011, 10:44:17 AM by N3QE » Logged
NI0C
Member

Posts: 2380




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: November 07, 2011, 02:49:07 PM »

Quote
I agree but still 0.6 ms rise/fall is incredibly short compared to typical CW waveforms. I suspect that above some speed important to the RufZXP developers that my expectations for what a CW waveform should look like, simply isn't fast enough.

I think you are right.  Some users are well above 200 WPM now (1000 CPM)!

Quote
I don't really like typical PC headphones either. Tinny crap. Me just getting curmudgeonly before my time :-).

I use an inexpensive MFJ headset for RufzXP work. 

Quote
Maybe I could figure out how to plug my JRC ST-3 phones into a PC. You know they list for $130 now? Wow. But worth it!

Those look very nice.  I saw that the low end of the frequency response is 400 Hz.  I wonder how they would respond at 300 Hz?

73,
Chuck  NI0C


Logged
VK2FAK
Member

Posts: 84




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: November 07, 2011, 03:37:46 PM »

Hi all....

I can't argue about the benefits of using the site as many have proven...its worthwhile.

But really....what benefit is there to copy a call sign at say 70 wpm  but you can only send at 40wpm(max)  and you can only QSO at around 35 comfortably...just as an example..

Now if it was a complete sentence of say 10 words...now your talking.

ps...I don't not to much about the site so maybe I am missing something.

John
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!