eHam

eHam Forums => CW => Topic started by: M0JHA on December 15, 2012, 03:42:07 AM



Title: decoders
Post by: M0JHA on December 15, 2012, 03:42:07 AM
Is it me or are there more and more people wanting to use cw without actually taking any trouble to learn the code  ?


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: PA0BLAH on December 15, 2012, 10:02:56 AM
When you don't have the will power and the perseverance to learn the code proficient, and you still want to be a real ham, you can simulate that by using a decoder. Can't you?

PSK31 is much better for machine decoding, but that has not the stature of CW.

So the decoding guys are just the appliance operators that are the wannabees, they are an additional complementary group.

 


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: KC2NYU on December 19, 2012, 05:01:27 AM
I have taught myself CW and can now copy and send 15 wpm, not up there with some of you veterans but my speed is increasing. I have gotten to that point by using these programs that you are dumping on. I have used CW decoders to help me learn to send by copying what I am sending, getting characters correct and improving my spacing, and when I am trying to do a QSO with someone a lot faster then what I an copy to ensure a callsign is correct. I love the myriad of software programs available to the Ham radio community today and try as many of them as I can. I have tried all the CW Programs out and they have been instrumental in learning the code.
-- So get off your high horse about appliance operators, many of these programs have been used to train folks and helped keep CW alive.

73 Paul kc2nyu


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: M0JHA on December 19, 2012, 12:33:27 PM
well done , you never know , keep practicing and you may be able to play like a real cw op one day when you throw the crutch away  ;D


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: KH2G on January 04, 2013, 06:30:58 PM
Paul, you have a good idea in using the decoder to improve your fist. I think there are a number of the guys out there that might be shocked if they tried listening to themselves via a decoder. -hi
73
Dick KH2G


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: N4WVE on January 20, 2013, 04:35:00 PM
Well, Billy! You must be psychic! I have yet to engage in a CW QSO and instantly know there is a decoder involved. Do you get like a burning sensation or something?


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: M0JHA on January 21, 2013, 01:51:32 AM
a constant couple of second delay in the station coming back whilst they finish reading is a good indication . another is crap code being sent because they have never learnt what good code sounds like as they have simply read off a decoder. My only point was lots seem to want to use the code but immedietly need to know of a good decoder before even trying without or at the very first hint of effort needing to be applied. I can understand someone using one to see how well they may be sending but that's another matter..


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: PA0BLAH on January 21, 2013, 02:23:28 PM
a constant couple of second delay in the station coming back whilst they finish reading is a good indication . another is crap code being sent because they have never learnt what good code sounds like as they have simply read off a decoder.

Oh boy, when I switch over from receiving to transmitting I have to decouple the antenna from the transmitter and couple it to the receiver.  Always takes some time. No QSK here, working on it., but not right now. Too many plans to do for a slow and always tired old man.

However good code sending is hardly an indication to find out, because they often sent with a keyboard and macro keys with call qth rest 5nn pwr and some code to identify their appliance, which I never understand.

However when they copy my call as pa0dlas or pa0blas or pa0dlah I am pretty sure they copy me on the part_of_a_pig way and not with a decoding device.

Furthermore a keyboard is normally not able to generate dit daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah dit as often done to cry out that the msg you just sent was received in good order.

And yes, when they sent as the final kiss not dit  dit but ditdahditdahditdah  ditdahditdahditdah you know for sure that they sent the two kissing dits with a keyboard.








Title: RE: decoders
Post by: N4WVE on January 21, 2013, 03:43:48 PM
And this is important why? If it bothers you so much, just don't answer. It's better to receive no response to my CQ than receive one from someone who has nothing better to do with his time than denigrate others. These are the people that almost caused the death of CW. You should thank Jesus every day that any new operator CHOOSES to try and learn cw and even to use it. How they get there means absolutely nothing. I think any new operator should use whatever means necessary to achieve their goal. Too many curmudgeons with too much time on their hands...so sad.


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: PA0BLAH on January 21, 2013, 04:21:10 PM
And this is important why?

Personally I don't think so. When somebody sends with a keyboard I can copy higher speeds than some banana boat swing or Lake Erie swingers with a vibroplex produce. 

In general sending is not a severe problem, it is receiving that takes a lot of time to learn proficient.

However generally known is that copy by head is possible for weak signals, with qrm/qrn, where  decoders completely fail, so the chance of completing a qso with one or both parties using decoders is a lot less.

When you use a decoder just to avoid learning the code, you are better of with PSK31,  that mode is much more suited for guys not planning to learn the code.





Title: RE: decoders
Post by: N4WVE on January 21, 2013, 04:38:45 PM
Obviously you can't plan to rely on just a decoder to play with cw, but for those just learning cw, it can be a useful aid for the learning process. Take that away and there is no reason to even try. There no cw requirement for licensing and no govt agencies use it, so why make these silly points so even more people will feel stigmatized for for not doing it "your way"? It's a hobby for God's sake...it's not that important.


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: M0JHA on January 22, 2013, 01:59:43 AM
The point isn't those using one to genuinly aid learning but those wanting one because they can't be bothered or it looks too much like hard work to do it without.. The problem arises NOT with people who think others should put some effort in BUT people like yourself stating why shouldn't people use a crutch when the reality is it's not that difficult to learn , yes it takes effort but that's something people are less willing to use nowdays ..


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: PA0BLAH on January 22, 2013, 02:18:12 AM
Obviously you can't plan to rely on just a decoder to play with cw, but for those just learning cw, it can be a useful aid for the learning process. Take that away and there is no reason to even try. There no cw requirement for licensing and no govt agencies use it, so why make these silly points so even more people will feel stigmatized for for not doing it "your way"? It's a hobby for God's sake...it's not that important.

Right, I agree, I appreciate your opinion, it is a hobby and looks like not to be important.

However, a guy that feels stigmatized by this (not mine) thread. and feels demoralized by it for trying to learn CW, is just the guy that better can't start at all, and use a decoder till another toy is passing by to try another mode. He will find out PSK31 is much more suited for him. So stigmatizing is a way of saving time for him, that he should waste otherwise, by trying something for a while (dutch: for a blue Monday) and finding out he doesn't have the perseverance.

You have minority groups, and a lot of members get their self esteem from being or feeling to be a member of such a group. As a rule it are less intellectually gifted people. May be they identify themself by the local soccer club, and feel good when that club wins a match without doing anything else then buying their merchandise, and shouting their lungs out of their throat during a match. They get at least a part if not all of their self esteem from  the social clustering.

So, you have motorbikers, when your only hobby is a motorbike, and you have to spend the day  with some odd job like cleaning greasy staircases and toilets in Anchorage, and you have no other personal interests, and saved a lot of money to buy the best bike ever,  and to pimp it up to make it a custom design, and you join a bikers club, that makes you feel to be someone.
So you start stigmatizing guys in cars, that have no bike, because they want easy transportation, in all weather conditions, they can't even ride a bike, and in the group they are stigmatized as being pedal bin drivers.

Do you really think that there is any pedal bin driver that want to ride a bike for fun in good weather, is demoralised by those statement makers?

Don't think so.

My personal idea is that it is not a way to learn the code by watching  a decoder. Decoders can help copy by head in order to prevent strain. Strain is wrong, when you feel easy and relaxed the code enters in your mind as Jesus words in a shaker.
http://www.nrc.nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ANP-12709202-568x378.jpg
So it takes away the strain because when you missed something you can look at the decoder. It is the wrong way to start with a decoder.

So best thing to do, when you want to breed CW guys, is pointing to the required perseverance, just like the DoD collects guys for heavy military tasks, by pointing to the severe physical and mental requirements and
when you are sufficiently experienced and master copying the code yourself, directing to the right way to learn and saying loud and clear what is the wrong way.

And yes, without government requirements there is sure a good reason to learn the code, you can make low power connections over long distances, like every QRP adept can tell you. Backpackers with a small sun powered trx can safe their life with it. Ask preppers. Above that in contesting and dxpeditions a lot more contacts per unit of time are possible. You don't have to spell "A_of_Alfa" "B_of_Bravo" "Cof_fee"

Rescue amateur service should require it to become a member, they don't because then there are hardly members to manage and when managing is your hobby , you have to drop that essential requirement for preppers and emergency ham radio organisations.



Title: RE: decoders
Post by: WB3CQM on January 22, 2013, 04:42:27 AM
When you don't have the will power and the perseverance to learn the code proficient, and you still want to be a real ham, you can simulate that by using a decoder. Can't you?

PSK31 is much better for machine decoding, but that has not the stature of CW.

So the decoding guys are just the appliance operators that are the wannabees, they are an additional complementary group.

 

I very much agree with what you say  Bob . But the part about being a real ham . To me being a real ham has nothing to do with being a Morse Code operator . To me a real ham for one example is a ham that when I ask for help comes to my house and helps me with difficult electronic project .  His back ground in electronics is above and beyond what I could ever know. Dave  learned the code to pass his advance exam but put the code key away for ever. Just because he has no interest in Mores code does not change that Dave is a real ham. My self I became a ham to be a code operator . I have no interest in electronics and home building radios and the like, period.

I say to the new ham . Do what you love to do in the hobby and have enjoyment . Please do NOT qrm the cw dx pile ups. Use the best decoder you can buy and use it  if you have fun .

But I do NOT believe you can learn cw by using a decoder. It may help to use one to learn to send . But I have my doubts on that also. There is nothing wrong with using a keyboard to send . But please if you type ahead use the space bar.

PSK is better mode for the new ham that does not want to put much effort into learning code.

I know NO Dutch but the link you posted with the guy wearing the  T shirt says "Ask me why I follow Jesus " I used a decoder to learn that. I have a translator that I can translate over 50 language. Except it does NOT work on Biblical Greek ! So I study Greek and it is not easy.

 Most Decoders do not work to good in qrm / qrn / qsb/  dx pile and they have no prestige and are mostly only a toy. Except CW Skimmer. I think  MPR40 is the best decoder.
BUT CW Decoders are here to stay . I also believe cw decoder ops are NOT hear to stay. Because decoders can not beat the better cw ops. 

I think  the first requirement to be a Morse Code Operator is you must love it more than any mode ! my 2 cents

To the OP M0JHA - I think you break the rules of your cw club by posting this thread , also my 2 cents. I doubt this thread will promote good will. But to the new ham > Bob gives good advice <

73 JIM


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: N4WVE on January 22, 2013, 04:43:20 AM
OK, FB on all...I've had my say and now I'm done. This has used 20 minutes of my life that I will never get back, so I am moving on...good luck and God speed...73.


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: PA0BLAH on January 22, 2013, 06:39:25 AM
But the part about being a real ham .

Thanks for writing down your opinion.
When you reread carefully my last post, you will find a paragraph which covers the motivation of people to perform a task that is advertised as very difficult and hence a challenge for them to gain self esteem when they pick it up and finish it.

Also the chance to be incorporated in a group that advertises the self esteem of the group by having performed a prescribed task is pretty motivating for a lot of hams.  I conclude this when I see the fancy awards pinned on the shack walls and the conquering behavior in all kind of contests.

Pretty vague, but somebody wrote recently 20 wpm. and that is perfect for ham use, you can work everybody  relaxed, except some guys that refuse to go QRS, and even that has advantage:  the fastest USA ham is still K7QO, if my information is correct, and he wrote on his website, that his motivation as a young guy to train QRQ was, a guy that refuses to go QRS in his novice contact.

Bob


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: M0JHA on January 22, 2013, 08:50:33 AM
Rules of what club?  Please don't get me wrong , i encourage ANYONE who wants to learn the code , i QRS when needed as others do for me . This side of the pond has been getting a trend for people wanting to use cw without even wanting to learn the code , i heard more than 3 or 4 people state when the KX3 arrived they were going to start doing morse  ???  HOW ?  , well it has a decoder so they can instantly become a cw op ...apparently.

Rarely do i hear people stating they have had the headaches of sat ,often on thier own cracking on with learning the code YET the common thing seems to be newcomers constantly asking about de coders and often before even having a crack without one..


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: M0LEP on January 22, 2013, 01:15:05 PM
This side of the pond has been getting a trend for people wanting to use cw without even wanting to learn the code

Can't say I've noticed that. I have come across quite a few folk who're trying to learn Morse but not finding much practical support or encouragement. There are exceptions (for instance there's one regular GB2CW operator not that far away I try to listen to each week, but I seldom receive his transmission any much better than 339) but they're few and far between.


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: WB3CQM on January 22, 2013, 05:16:57 PM
Rules of what club?  Please don't get me wrong , i encourage ANYONE who wants to learn the code , i QRS when needed as others do for me . This side of the pond has been getting a trend for people wanting to use cw without even wanting to learn the code , i heard more than 3 or 4 people state when the KX3 arrived they were going to start doing morse  ???  HOW ?  , well it has a decoder so they can instantly become a cw op ...apparently.

Rarely do i hear people stating they have had the headaches of sat ,often on thier own cracking on with learning the code YET the common thing seems to be newcomers constantly asking about de coders and often before even having a crack without one..

How can there be any enjoyment copying code with a decoder ? It seems I am correct to think it is impossible to copy a PSK signal in one's mind . I find PSK not to be fun at all. Except for the few dx pile ups I was in. Working split with many stations calling was a bit fun. But otherwise I am not sure I will ever use psk again.

But Morse Code now that is exciting even after many years and 1000's of contacts.

I know you are a  top cw op and you understand what I say. The reward of years of practice to be able to copy in head even poor fist great fist straight keys bugs, electronic keys , keyboard ops. The music of Morse code . The pile ups the qso. This cw is unmatched by any mode I have tried.

If you do not understand the music what point is there to use a decoder ? I just believe those hams with their new K3 will either give it up or will learn to copy code the right way  ? What do you think ?


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: K8AXW on January 22, 2013, 09:02:53 PM
CQM:  My opinion?  They'll give it up.  Easy come..... easy go.


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: M0JHA on January 23, 2013, 01:36:56 AM
This side of the pond has been getting a trend for people wanting to use cw without even wanting to learn the code

Can't say I've noticed that. I have come across quite a few folk who're trying to learn Morse but not finding much practical support or encouragement. There are exceptions (for instance there's one regular GB2CW operator not that far away I try to listen to each week, but I seldom receive his transmission any much better than 339) but they're few and far between.

Don't get me wrong i know people doing it the "right way" without de coders , and i agree there isn't a whole heap of help around without activly searching some out . The 2m transmissions and a few on HF will help and i think there are a few clubs taking classes on .. It was a hard slog for me as no one i knew was interested ,and as many will , i also thought it was going to be impossible for me to learn when the fact is yes it takes commitment and effort but it's not something that i would class as hard , it's just another learning curve.

Many people nowdays want instant gratification , not just learning code but in all manner of things , personally i feel it's the fault of the  electronic age whereby we can do so many things with little or no effort.

a guy not far from me wanted to try code so i said i would help him , he doesn't live that far away so i could of sat with him over a table and sent/recieved code when he got to that stage etc etc BUT he wanted a decoder to look at . I said ok but NOT to use it for learning but all he wanted was to learn the letters/numbers etc and use the decoder to read and i couldn't convince him not too . " i can't see the point in learning something i don't have too" on that i left him too it ..

 


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: M0LEP on January 23, 2013, 06:26:50 AM
" i can't see the point in learning something i don't have too"

...and I guess he didn't go far. I figure there's one good use for decoders, and that's as something to practice sending to. If the decoder can read you then you're probably sending tolerable code.

There is, according to http://www.rsgb.org.uk/morse/schedule.php , supposed to be a regular GB2CW transmission on VHF near here, but I've listened for it several times and never heard it. I can, on a good day, hear about half of one regular weekly HF transmission, but usually it's sufficiently clobbered by QSB (and, sometimes, QRM too) that listening is frustrating rather than helpful. Below, typed from my hand-written scrawl, is what I heard last week. In the original some spaces are longer than others, but they almost all indicate multiple missed characters, and quite a bit of that's down to poor reception.

Quote
m nt om hatc h d p w e age 25 , tew . if ll wet to c n he ter of cs u ly oo n a3 ale w lh lh cho h l e t de c de d sh i off the g s w7 er ru rto m h e hs art o j u he a the la ac eu ota f ns ma a s atte o l wohb o si e o he rs g tu cte d a iot w is the te and k stlt woo z rt o a p e y etse

I have no idea what a decoder would have made of the signal, but I presume a competent person would have managed a bit better than I did.


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: K8AXW on January 23, 2013, 09:26:38 AM
LEP: 
Quote
I have no idea what a decoder would have made of the signal, but I presume a competent person would have managed a bit better than I did.

Perhaps a more competent operator would have done better, maybe not.  It's questionable if a decoder could have done any better than you.  As someone mentioned, the thing between the ears is the best decoder ever made.  And this is the whole point in learning the code.  If you stay with it you'll will find those "gaps" will become fewer and your "scrawl" will give way to solid copy and perhaps even 'head copy.' 

As one who has used the code for almost 60 years I can assure you and everyone else here, with decoders or computers, the human brain can pick out a signal among many and understand what is being said. The brain can pick out a "fist" that has been heard before; can tell if an operator has been changed on a radio circuit; if that operator is drunk or maybe sick or simply doesn't give a rats ass if he does his job or not.

NO decoder or computer can do that.  None. 

JHA:
Quote
Many people nowdays want instant gratification , not just learning code but in all manner of things , personally i feel it's the fault of the  electronic age whereby we can do so many things with little or no effort.

You're absolutely right on the money!  I often refer to this generation as the "Right Now!" generation.  I watch my 3 grandkids when they do things and it's always done in twitches and jerks.  If it doesn't go well immediately, then they set it down and go off to something else. Usually a mindless video game.

I have to be careful here on the CW forum that I don't get emotional to some of what I read.  Never in our history have we had more ways to learn the code than we do today.  In spite of what is available we still read of another "best way to learn code" or "what's the best and fastest way to learn code?" 

Then there are those who whine about "nobody to help me."  Whatever happened to doing it yourself, no matter what it takes or how long it takes?

It's enough to make a grown man throw up!


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: M0JHA on January 23, 2013, 10:11:19 AM
 ;D  .. well i'm a young pup , been at it 3 years maybe a little longer . i tried learning the code twice and gave up on both occasions , a few month down the line i would sit and think if only i had stuck with it i would be doing it now .. The last attempt i decided to try and make it as fun as i could and try and enjoy learning , i remember ( sounds daft now) hearing someone say DR JOHN IT WAS SO HOT TODAY I NEARLY FAINTED , or something along those lines

I ran into the living room to tell the wife i had just heard someone telling a doctor he had nearly fainted with the heat  ;D i didn't get much else but from that moment i knew it could be done , i knew i could do it even after thinking no way could i ever be able to . Now i'm one of those people that says " if i can , anyone can" , and anyone can .

i'm 44 but can remeber the days of only landline telephones only and no computers , plugs /points and distributers on cars and people that looked at you and conversed instead of walking round staring at a smartphone ..

are we in a better place now ?  personally i think not .. but i know i should of been born 30 years earlier  ;D



Title: RE: decoders
Post by: M0LEP on January 23, 2013, 01:11:28 PM
It's questionable if a decoder could have done any better than you.

I'm pretty sure that I'd have beaten a decoder on that signal, because the quality of the signal was bad enough to give any of the decoders I've come across serious problems, but even so I suspect maybe a third (or more) of the characters I did write down I got wrong. I'm pretty sure that a competent operator would have copied at least twice as much as I managed, and with far fewer errors.

Then there are those who whine about "nobody to help me."  Whatever happened to doing it yourself, no matter what it takes or how long it takes?

I had no trouble studying for the Intermediate and Advanced exams by myself, but I've been trying to learn Morse by myself since mid 2010. Truth is it's easier to learn some things when you get positive reinforcement and feel that you're making progress, and Morse, being a method of communication, is a lot harder to learn if you don't have anyone to talk to...

...and at least until you can recognise enough characters to know your own callsign and read the callsign of the other operator, it's simply not practical to find someone to talk to on the air.

i'm 44 but can remeber the days of only landline telephones only

I'm 54, and can remember land lines where you had to wind a handle to ring a bell to call the operator to connect your call...


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: 2E0OZI on January 23, 2013, 02:38:18 PM
Well mate we'll have to set up a sked.  ;D


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: N6SBN on January 23, 2013, 03:44:46 PM
  I had no interest in CW at all.   Using PSK31 and JT65 was interesting...   Then, I heard the CW and tried using the machine.   Which,... Led to an interest in learning the CW.    So,  in a sense,  using FLDIGI brought on a curiosity for CW that didn't exist before.


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: WY4J on January 23, 2013, 04:10:50 PM
CW decoders do not work and if you think they do, I have a nice bridge that I would like to sell you. If you want to play on cw, get off you but and out the effort lo learn it. There is no short cut. There is not technology at this moment that will decode like the good old human ear and brain. Yes, if the signal is strong enough, you can copy those who send with a computer keyboard. You can copy those who send with an electronic keyer and a set of paddles. Try copying a signal so faint you can barely hear it. Try decoding a someone who is not proficient with a bug. Try decoding some of those real bad fists out there. Try decoding great and melodious cw send perfectly but with a strait key. Again, if you want to play on cw you have to put the time and effort. If you are not willing to do so, stay digital or on ssb.


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: K8AXW on January 23, 2013, 09:50:06 PM
JHA:  Very inspirational!  When you first hear signals on the air and are able to understand some of what is being said, then this is when the excitement starts!  This is what causes the almost uncontrollable hunger to hear and understand more!  If only others would try to understand this. 

LEP:
Quote
being a method of communication, is a lot harder to learn if you don't have anyone to talk to...


Perhaps there's an element of truth in this but let's stop and analyze.  The usual method of learning code is to obtain tapes, CDs..... some recorded media to listen to. Initially it is a group of letters or numbers and more are added as you learn. 

When it comes to sending, which most find easier than copying, it's a simple matter of emulating what you have been listening to.  The point is to emulate the element length, the spacing between letters and the spacing between words.  Have you ever heard a non-English speaking person speak English with a British accent?  Guess why.  They are emulating what they hear.

While you learn the code from recorded media it's also good idea to listen to it as it is on the air.  However, it must be understood from the outset that the two sources will be very different and not let it frustrate you.  It's a simple matter of understanding why this is.

Once you are able to listen to on the air CW and understand what is being sent and you are pretty sure you are able to send like what you have been listening to, then get on the air and have at it.  It will be unsteady, perhaps upsetting or even frustrating but all of this is very short lived. 

The point of this is that you haven't had anyone to "help" you or even to talk to.  It's how you do it yourself.  Sure, it might be easier and even more fun to have someone to be with you but it sure isn't necessary!



Title: RE: decoders
Post by: M0LEP on January 24, 2013, 09:06:44 AM
However, it must be understood from the outset that the two sources will be very different and not let it frustrate you.

These days tapes and CDs have been replaced by computer-generated code (often using tones I find somewhat painful to listen to), but yes, what's on the air and what's served up by the training sources aren't much alike...

Once you are able to listen to on the air CW and understand what is being sent

A point I'm still well short of, at least partly because I hear very little code being sent slowly enough for me to stand a chance. One GB2CW transmission a week (if I'm lucky) is never going to be enough by itself, and most of the code I hear on air is 20wpm or faster, which is too fast...

It will be unsteady, perhaps upsetting or even frustrating but all of this is very short lived.

I'm clearly way off the average here. I've been in that position for at least a year, maybe two...

Sure, it might be easier and even more fun to have someone to be with you but it sure isn't necessary!

The point I was trying to make is that folks learn in different ways. I could do the licence exams on my own easily, but other people struggle, and need teaching to get through them. Flip-wise, some folks can clearly learn Morse easily, and others (like me) struggle...

CW decoders do not work and if you think they do, I have a nice bridge that I would like to sell you.

They clearly work up to a point, as sites like http://www.reversebeacon.net/ wouldn't work if they didn't, but they're certainly not foolproof. I sometimes wonder just how many of the callsigns spotted on that site are incorrect; I've noticed one or two...

Well mate we'll have to set up a sked.  ;D

When's a good time for you, and what's a good band? Given the distance, I'd guess 80 or 40 metres...


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: 2E0OZI on January 24, 2013, 09:16:11 AM
Either is cool with me - tonight I'm off to the West Devon radio Club, but most nights after about 9 I am OK.  :) Send me a message on the Zed.


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: M0JHA on January 24, 2013, 09:50:35 AM
@M0LEP , where are you listening ? 40m around the EU fists calling freq should get you lots of slower code . What speed you working at ?

Calling during the day should bag you lots of inter G stations many if not all will gladly qrs for you if you need to ask , by rights they should automatically come back to your call at your speed .

Like the other guy if you fancy trying a sked i will gladly try , if you need and help/info or i can offer any guidance or help in any way my /m number is 07816 991289 ...

billy


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: M0LEP on January 24, 2013, 11:06:50 AM
Either is cool with me - tonight I'm off to the West Devon radio Club, but most nights after about 9 I am OK.  :) Send me a message on the Zed.

@M0LEP , where are you listening ? 40m around the EU fists calling freq should get you lots of slower code . What speed you working at ?

Thanks, both of you. I'm out the next couple of evenings. The weekend's weather-dependant, but I should be by the rig at least some of the time.

Normally, when I'm looking for QRS(-ish) Morse I scan around about 3.555 +/- 0.01 or so, but I also sometimes try wherever reversebeacon.net spots someone working 15wpm or slower. I find 40m a bit of a bear-pit, often with too many loud stations too close together, though I have tried listening in around 7.03(-ish) because that's where SOTA activators tend to pop up...


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: N9KX on January 24, 2013, 12:47:53 PM
a keyboard is normally not able to generate dit daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah dit as often done to cry out that the msg you just sent was received in good order.

perhaps that is why i stick with a straight key.  and i think that also informs me as to why i don't find CW the same these days as it used to be. i miss when almost everyone gave that dit daaaaaaaaaaaaaah dit and also the daaaaaah dit dit dit daaaaaah in between phrases!

those things are the music that make CW special -- keyboards and decoders: not so much  ;)


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: ZENKI on February 09, 2013, 02:18:30 AM
yeah CW is  becoming as bad PSK with their canned  QSO templates.

Now we have the DXCC keyboard hero's  the only CW they work is chasing new ones and they cant even conduct a CW QSO without a keyboard or decoder.
They easy too spot with the incorrectly sent pro-signs.

What I also miss is the chirpy CW transmissions  from the old USSR operators. It was like music to the ears hearing these chirpy homebrew CW transmitters. Now they all running Icom IC7700 and IC7800's !

a keyboard is normally not able to generate dit daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah dit as often done to cry out that the msg you just sent was received in good order.

perhaps that is why i stick with a straight key.  and i think that also informs me as to why i don't find CW the same these days as it used to be. i miss when almost everyone gave that dit daaaaaaaaaaaaaah dit and also the daaaaaah dit dit dit daaaaaah in between phrases!

those things are the music that make CW special -- keyboards and decoders: not so much  ;)


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: W8NIC on February 21, 2013, 02:02:37 PM
it wasn't long ago when cw was no longer a requirement to get a ham license. there are plenty of new hams that are trying to learn the code for pure enjoyment. I am one of them, licensed 6 years ago. now, i can send somewhere around 30-35 wpm with a very gud level of accuracy but cannot head copy that fast.
when ever i engage in a qso (20 wpm) the other fellow will not slow down so i have to speed up sending then turn on cwget.
i've been critizised for doing this by some arrogant cw ops here in my area and i say, so what? sue me. these are the people that actually discourage hams to get into cw. shame on you.
flame away guys !!!!!!


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: 2E0OZI on February 22, 2013, 12:33:36 AM
Still a few of those chirpy Russian ops out there Zenki - I heard one a week ago sounded like he was squeezing a parrot!


Title: RE: decoders
Post by: N5RDE on March 02, 2013, 07:24:07 PM
Like most, I learned CW by ear.   However, the cw readers may be a good learning aid.  See the character, hear the character....., see the word, hear the word ......  I imagine most people want to copy by ear, but this may be a way to get there.  If so, it's all good.   

In former times, the decision was simple, train by ear.  There was no other way to do it.  It must have been brutal in the days of straight-key telegraphy.  The punch-tape players made it a little easier, and cassette tapes were still more convenient.  After years away from radio, I'm trying to get back to 30 wpm, and I'm using mp3 files from the ARRL code archives.  Perhaps we are just set in our ways and these cw readers deserve another look.