Will/How will the future Tech change the way we QRP ?

[AA4PB]

One thing that speeds up CW in normal operating is the extensive use of abbreviations and Q signals. You would loose that in any standard voice to text software unless you are willing to "speak" each letter. A conversation might go something like this (where ... is a pause of 1-5 seconds):

kay...one...aya...bee...see...this...is...aya...aya...four...pee...bee...

[N5RWJ]

I don't think in the future you will need abbreviation for voice cw , you don't need abbreviation when you speak to some one,
 And voice cw deepening on voice to cw decoder should be so fast you want need to. Future tech and hams will refined voice cw
for smooth operating. It should become popular with no code, handicap and ssb dx hams when it arrives.

  NOTE: Voice CW and low power should give you the world.

[N5RWJ]

The only deference is, your sending CW by voice and not your hand,

Yeah,  we all understood that from your first post.

I said:

an op using Dragon Speak through his computer CW
 program is NOT "Sending CW at 50 wpm".

TECHNICALLY true, the signals are being created.
BUT if you ask 99% of hams how one sends CW,
they will say "Key, Paddie, or Bug".
Your mileage may vary.
Or it's just a matter of semantics, dropping of the CW
requirement causing how people conceive the mode,
old fart syndrome, too much Vitamin L in the 60's, whatever...

RX decoding is unchanged , you use your ear,
or whatever depending on the CW speed.

I guess "Whatever" in this sentence means a
CW computer decode program. How well those
decoders work depends on a hell of a lot more
than CW "speed"! Other signals in the passband,
QSB, QRN, QRM, and of course #1: How well the
CW is being sent. Even if it IS computer generated,
propagation and the other factors play a big part, too.

Ever try using one of those CW Decoders in a contest?
Or when the band is crowded, or on 40m with
the heterodynes from the SWL Broadcast stations?
(It HAS gotten better since they moved them up to 7200 kc,
showing my age!)
Anyway, they don't work well at all,
IF AT ALL, under those conditions.

But by all means, set it up and try it. (Would
only really work under ideal, uncrowded conditions, methinks)
Let us know truthfully how well  it works.
(Post on YouTube?)

What CW speed works best?
How fast is the TEXT T throughput?
How about "text throughput rate" versus
"Decoded CW message throughout rate?" (Interesting, that one)
Since it's NOT a "handshake mode" like
AMTOR FEC, or PACTOR, you have no
way of correcting errors except to ask for a
repeat on the next transmission.

Good luck with your project.
I still think it's a parlor trick but would
be interested in hearing and seeing the results.
GL & 73, Ken  AD6KA

Those are good points, and the best people to make voice cw to work are hams.

[N5RWJ]

The question is who will be the Fathers of Voice/CW

[AA4PB]

"I don't think in the future you will need abbreviation for voice cw , you don't need abbreviation when you speak to some one"

What you are missing is that the abbreviations are what makes a slow mode like CW faster. If you send CW the way people speak, it will be very slow. Suppose I live in Mississippi. I can say Mississippi in about 1 second. However, at 20WPM it will take the software about 6 seconds to send that word. If you don't encode it in some special way, voice-CW will be a very slow mode. If you encode it then it is no longer standard Morse that humans can read.

My much earlier point was that if you encode it and require a computer on the receive end to decode it then why use CW when there are already much faster and more efficient digital transmission modes available.

I think you are also making the assumption that CW can transmit much farther than any other mode. That's no longer true. PSK31 and some other digital modes can function at even lower signal to noise ratios than CW. Voice-PSK31 might be a lot more practical.

[N5RWJ]

"I don't think in the future you will need abbreviation for voice cw , you don't need abbreviation when you speak to some one"

What you are missing is that the abbreviations are what makes a slow mode like CW faster. If you send CW the way people speak, it will be very slow. Suppose I live in Mississippi. I can say Mississippi in about 1 second. However, at 20WPM it will take the software about 6 seconds to send that word. If you don't encode it in some special way, voice-CW will be a very slow mode. If you encode it then it is no longer standard Morse that humans can read.

My much earlier point was that if you encode it and require a computer on the receive end to decode it then why use CW when there are already much faster and more efficient digital transmission modes available.

I think you are also making the assumption that CW can transmit much farther than any other mode. That's no longer true. PSK31 and some other digital modes can function at even lower signal to noise ratios than CW. Voice-PSK31 might be a lot more practical.

*Thanks for your excellent commits, but what is needed to make voice/cw work? Ref: G3PLX and his work with PSK-31 using Vericode and its Alphabet , is this the way forward  for Voice/CW? Well not for some, you can't copy it by ear

[N5RWJ]

"I don't think in the future you will need abbreviation for voice cw , you don't need abbreviation when you speak to some one"

What you are missing is that the abbreviations are what makes a slow mode like CW faster. If you send CW the way people speak, it will be very slow. Suppose I live in Mississippi. I can say Mississippi in about 1 second. However, at 20WPM it will take the software about 6 seconds to send that word. If you don't encode it in some special way, voice-CW will be a very slow mode. If you encode it then it is no longer standard Morse that humans can read.

My much earlier point was that if you encode it and require a computer on the receive end to decode it then why use CW when there are already much faster and more efficient digital transmission modes available.

I think you are also making the assumption that CW can transmit much farther than any other mode. That's no longer true. PSK31 and some other digital modes can function at even lower signal to noise ratios than CW. Voice-PSK31 might be a lot more practical.

You can't copy those modes by ear.

[AE6ZW]

yet, I have not come cross better CW decoder than ears.  when signal fade in QSB, human can guess missing charactors, etc.  many of the computerized CW decoder can not adopt to change in speed, QRM, can not guess missing charactor, etc.

[N5RWJ]

At this time, some can't, but in the future?