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]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: best CW encoder/decoder?  (Read 3426 times)
KB1IUI
Member

Posts: 48




Ignore
« on: May 16, 2009, 07:16:39 AM »

I have some  medical problems and haven't been able to do code. I really want to do QRP CW. Which are the best programs for encoding/decoding CW by computer, both pay and freeware.

Mike
Logged
NA4IT
Member

Posts: 870


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2009, 04:22:03 PM »

There are a lot of the digital sound card programs that will do CW. However, most programs only decode proportionately to how well the sender sends on the other end of the QSO. They are using algorithms that look for perfectly spaced dits and dahs that are exact lengths.

That said, you should able to communicate with another keyboard operator well. And, for those with problems hearing code, I don't see why there aren't some CW frequencies where folks operate keyboard.

de NA4IT
Logged
W5DQ
Member

Posts: 1209


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2009, 10:56:39 AM »

I have found that MixW has a very efficient CW interface. It will decode about 90% of the CW it hears accurately. Like was said, it depends alot on the sender's fist and RX conditions. You have to tweak it but I have mine finally to a point where it will pick out even the weak signals pretty accurately.

Gene W5DQ
Logged

Gene W5DQ
Ridgecrest, CA - DM15dp
www.radioroom.org
W0GLB
Member

Posts: 45




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2009, 08:05:54 AM »

I can strongly recommend both the CWGet and CWType combo, and HRD/DM780.  I have used both, and both are very good at what they do, and very simple to use.  My only concern is that no computer program is ever going to approach the performance level of the human ear/brain combo when it comes to interpreting a signal that is barely perceptible through the noise. I only raise this issue as you said you were interested in QRP-and the essence of QRP is pulling out the weak signals.  That said, I am quite confident that, if you are running 5-100w into any reasonable antenna, you will have plenty of stations to work using either software combo.

73 es GL,
W0GLB Gordon
Logged
W0BTU
Member

Posts: 1559


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2009, 12:53:05 PM »

I don't own this program, but it sounds capable of the job.

http://www.dxatlas.com/CwSkimmer/

http://k9jy.com/blog/2008/03/04/cw-skimmer-a-monster-or-killer-tool/


73 Mike
Logged

G4AON
Member

Posts: 514




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: June 28, 2009, 04:44:53 AM »

Sending CW with a keyboard is easy, provided you remember to use appropriate abbreviations rather than typing out long words, etc. Common examples might be sending "R TU = 73 GN" which is fairly typical of a CW operator on a key but probably isn't how most of us would send a message on a keyboard.

The computer decoders work well with clear signals and keyboard senders, but 95% of the time you won't be listening to "perfect" senders or signals. Code that is easy to understand by ear ends up not being decoded perfectly by a computer... I have an Elecraft K3 which has built in decoding for CW, it reproduces the errors exactly as they are sent. I know what the word should be and ignore the error without really thinking about it... The kind of errors I am referring to are mostly marginally wrong spacings, which result in "N" printing as "TE", or "IT" as "A".

You will find PSK31, and similar modes, work a whole lot better than computer decoded CW. The decoders suggested by others will work, but not as well as a MK 1 ear.

73 Dave
Logged
Pages: [1]   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!