Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Bad CW  (Read 34844 times)

9V1VV

  • Member
  • Posts: 57
Bad CW
« on: March 23, 2017, 10:37:50 PM »

Last night I was tuning around the lower end of 20m trying to find a workable station in all my noise. I heard a VU2 very strong calling CQ on beacon mode and gave him a call. He came back with "bad CW bad CW bad CW" from a keyboard I think, probably a macro.  I had to call him several times before he got my call right.

I am a bug user. No apologies. I  started with straight key as an R/0 and tried electronic paddles but could not master them, probably because of a tendency to lengthen dahs on the straight key, I would end up sending too many dahs on the paddles. Hence I settled on bug key many years ago.

All my CQs are captured on RBN so it must be pretty accurate. And in fact I do try to send as perfectly as possible.

I don't think I'm that bad an operator: I'm a member of all the "prestigious" CW clubs, and regularly ragchew when conditions are good.

It seems that the VU was probably using a CW reader like the one built in to the K3, which is pretty useless, as are most of them. Anything but pure CW is rejected.

The VU came back with my call as 8U1UV, 9U2VU, 9U1UU until he go it right after I had send my call several times. In between he kept insulting me with a macro "Bad CW Bad CW" etc.

I wonder if this is the future of CW where operators can only recognise their own call  from a DX station working a pileup, then respond with a macro 5NN TU.

If so it is a pretty bleak future. May as well just let loose the radios and PCs on automatic.

After this QSO I continued to listen to the VU calling CQ and noticed that he had the same problem with another VU who sounded as if he was using a straight key.

73 de Bad Operator




Logged

GW3OQK

  • Member
  • Posts: 469
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #1 on: March 24, 2017, 04:29:45 AM »

Sounds like you were excessively tolerant with that VU. Thanks for warning me that such behaviour exists.

On a previous thread there was an example of my morse being easily copied 100% by ear but was very corrupt by a decoder. Decoders/computer is not the future of CW.
73
Andrew

Logged

AK4YH

  • Member
  • Posts: 187
    • Radio Prepper
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #2 on: March 24, 2017, 07:56:03 AM »

Probably a keyboard operator who can't decode Morse without his computer. Not worth bothering with...

Gil.
Logged

K8AXW

  • Posts: 7391
    • HomeURL
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #3 on: March 24, 2017, 09:37:13 AM »

I would do two things:

1 - I would have someone who isn't afraid to speak the truth evaluate my sending.  This might be harder that you think but I would do it somehow.  As I mentioned in another thread here on the CW Forum when someone suggested making a recording and sending it to the QLF operator, "he will listen to it and think it is good sending."

I also said something to the effect that "bug operators were the worst offenders for bad keying because they have a tendency to send the dits at 20WPM and the dahs at 13-15WPM."  Be sure you're not one of these.

2 - After determining that my sending was indeed good enough to copy (Note that I didn't say perfect!) I would ignore the VU  LID.

I agree with the rest who expressed their opinions that the VU was using a CW reader, which requires almost perfect CW without QRN/M. 

Personally, I feel that someone who needs a reader to copy CW is not a CW operator. 
Logged
A Pessimist is Never Disappointed!

K3STX

  • Member
  • Posts: 1697
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #4 on: March 24, 2017, 09:42:46 AM »

After decades of sending "perfect" code with paddles I switched to bugs a few years ago. Make sending CW more fun. Not much challenge in sending with paddles. And yeah, it may not be "perfect", but who cares.

Record yourself sending things like old notes from your logbook or material from a newspaper. Wait a few days, play it back to yourself and see if YOU can understand exactly what you sent.

But I would not worry about that VU idiot; there are idiots all over the place. Life is too short to worry about such things.

paul
Logged

W3TTT

  • Posts: 324
    • HomeURL
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #5 on: March 24, 2017, 11:04:49 AM »

Considering your call, and the mistakes, I would say that the VU was a dot-counter.   ;D
Logged

W7ASA

  • Member
  • Posts: 562
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #6 on: March 24, 2017, 07:40:02 PM »

I'll add to the thought that the VU was probably using  a computer for copy ( and probably sending as you suggested. ).  Too many guys buy a transceiver , plug in a computer then believe that Morse is just another "digital mode": it's binary - yes - but well suited for human copy, not optimal for a robot copy - which is why I love Morse code.

ZUT de Ray
Logged

GW3OQK

  • Member
  • Posts: 469
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2017, 02:46:47 AM »

Quote
I would do two things:

1 - I would have someone who isn't afraid to speak the truth evaluate my sending.  This might be harder that you think but I would do it somehow.


K8AXW, why not start a thread inviting us to submit a recording of our sending. Anybody would be free to truthfully evaluate it. It could include interesting off-air examples.
73, Andrew
Logged

N4OI

  • Member
  • Posts: 434
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #8 on: March 25, 2017, 05:30:13 AM »

[...]
Personally, I feel that someone who needs a reader to copy CW is not a CW operator. 

I agree with this statement.  This may go against the grain, but I draw a a parallel between CW and verbal language.  One may learn proper diction for speaking, but then add some slang, accent and expression.  Being from the south, we embrace this concept...  (Think of this great scene in the movie "Gettysburg" - "I'm fightin' for my rats!")

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-Fj478kozs

So, I guess we CW ops are fighting for our "rats" to use our "bugs" anyway we please!"   

 ::)  73

Logged

W6MK

  • Posts: 4095
    • HomeURL
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #9 on: March 25, 2017, 10:21:28 AM »

Being from the south, we embrace this concept...  (Think of this great scene in the movie "Gettysburg" - "I'm fightin' for my rats!")

I am not really a Southerner, although I do have lots of family down there. It took me just a minute to understand "rats."

Then I got it, with some joy.

Kind of like the joy of getting it when one speaks code. Computers: no joy.

Bottom line is that you are quite rat.


Logged

K8AXW

  • Posts: 7391
    • HomeURL
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #10 on: March 25, 2017, 10:30:35 AM »

We all have the "rat" to send as we wish....just don't expect to be appreciated!  If someone slams one into you up to the feathers for a crummy fist, that's his "rat" as well. 

I can understand one getting their feelings hurt if someone tells them to QLF but this should be a learning moment and take advantage of it.  Find out what you're doing wrong and correct it.  Simple. 

FWIW...."rats" is also translated to "rations" like the military C-rations.  Just gotta understand Amurican!   ::)
Logged
A Pessimist is Never Disappointed!

AA8TA

  • Member
  • Posts: 33
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #11 on: March 25, 2017, 10:35:49 AM »

A few nights ago, I was criticized not for my sending, but for my receiving.  Shake it off, move on.  Lots of other ops out there.
Logged
TU es 73 de Joe AA8TA

K8AXW

  • Posts: 7391
    • HomeURL
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #12 on: March 25, 2017, 11:06:57 AM »

Quote
K8AXW, why not start a thread inviting us to submit a recording of our sending. Anybody would be free to truthfully evaluate it. It could include interesting off-air examples.
73, Andrew

The best analogy I can come up with to describe such a thread would be to open  a gearbox running at 5,000 RPM and dump in a bucket of bolts!  That thread would make Trump's election pale in comparison! 

No thanky!!
Logged
A Pessimist is Never Disappointed!

DU7DVE

  • Member
  • Posts: 334
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #13 on: March 25, 2017, 05:46:21 PM »

I have someone elmering me now on CW. A few guys also take part in our evening "net". Most of them use bugs and send with very nice accents. I'm very happy with this situation because besides enjoying the lilt, I understand that it's also very good practice for my decoding. It's just too bad that conditions are rarely good between us but I also look on it as more practice reading weak sigs.
Logged

K3STX

  • Member
  • Posts: 1697
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #14 on: March 25, 2017, 07:45:57 PM »

OK, I'll bite. But I have to say, I have already had some wine tonight!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxmkXsHvZF8

paul
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9   Go Up