Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Bad CW  (Read 34843 times)

AC2EU

  • Member
  • Posts: 2793
    • McVey Electronics
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #45 on: March 28, 2017, 09:30:26 AM »

dit dit dit daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
As a neophyte, I'm disappointed to read about so many talented/experienced OPs promoting sloppy bug CW!

Morse code has a specific parameter for the dit to dah length ratio which is 1:3. How about trying to do your best to respect that ratio?

Instead of being the elder statesmen for the preservation of the art, many of you seem proud that you can send and copy sloppy code.
there is only one standard. Everything else is for the members of the 'sloppy code club". It's like your own own special version which has no real standard, like a form of extreme slang.

Sorry, but I don't think we should cut the guys who can't send even rhythm with a bug so much slack-as if that is some kind of elitist badge of honor!
A bad fist is a bad fist.
If you can't get your bug under control, for God's sake USE A KEYER! 

W6MK

  • Posts: 4095
    • HomeURL
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #46 on: March 28, 2017, 10:09:39 AM »

Morse code has a specific parameter for the dit to dah length ratio which is 1:3.

Many of you seem proud that you can send and copy sloppy code.

There is only one standard. Everything else is for the members of the 'sloppy code club. It's like your own own special version which has no real standard, like a form of extreme slang.

The dictator has spoken!  :D

Maybe he can tell us how the specific parameter of 1:3 was established. By whom, when and where? Were there various opinions
at the time of the establishment of 1:3 as to the best ratio?

Why do many of the best keyers have an adjustable weighting ratio if there is only one acceptable standard?

Can he give us a range of acceptable tolerance? Why not a precisely-defined range of perceptable tolerance? Does it make a difference if a certain level of "sloppiness" cannot be heard by ear or identified by an electronic reader? (I have been told during QSOs that my bug sending, which I know has small, and sometimes large, errors, can be copied via CW reader.)

The "neophyte" does not understand, apparently, the history of Morse and that there are several versions of code. American Morse, interpreted via a sounder is quite different from International Morse which is heard via a tone.

Morse code practice is also an historical practice with operational performance determined originally via manual keys. Character spacing and element weighting originally were determined by human neurosystems rather than by electronic circuits.

History is important for those who understand what it is. Robotic sending or quasi-robotic sending may have been a gift to ops who
otherwise would have trouble mastering the musical skills required for handmade sending (and receiving). That's good for
a radio mode that otherwise might have died out.

Like many other things, Morse has an aesthetic. This aesthetic reflects the experience of many highly-experienced and
skillful ops. I work regular CW nets where most of the ops use keyers but still make a major effort to send code which is
beautiful and easy-to-copy. Yes there are standards for spacing between characters and between words, but the best keyer-using
ops will vary their work from the standards where they can to create code that is especially easy to copy as well as aesthetically elegant. Farnsworth sending is only one example.

Yes, current culture, dominated by what may well be an authoritarian robotic sensibility, often looks to ignore experience and history. There remain many human beings who still find both experience and history to be important.

« Last Edit: March 28, 2017, 10:12:53 AM by KE6EE »
Logged

K8AXW

  • Posts: 7391
    • HomeURL
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #47 on: March 28, 2017, 10:13:22 AM »

Quote
Sorry, but I don't think we should cut the guys who can't send even rhythm with a bug so much slack-as if that is some kind of elitist badge of honor!
A bad fist is a bad fist.

AMEN!  Every time I read about a bug "swing" I could puke!  EVERY operator should try to emulate the 1:3 ratio as close as possible and forgo their cute "swing!"

Being able to copy this is a reflection on the versatility of the receiving operator, not a favorable reflection of the sending operator.  Same with QRP.  It's a reflection of the good receiving operator....not so much that a guy is able to get out with a 1watt station and wet noodle for an antenna!
Logged
A Pessimist is Never Disappointed!

K3STX

  • Member
  • Posts: 1697
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #48 on: March 28, 2017, 11:22:09 AM »

Morse code has a specific parameter for the dit to dah length ratio which is 1:3.

Many of you seem proud that you can send and copy sloppy code.

There is only one standard. Everything else is for the members of the 'sloppy code club. It's like your own own special version which has no real standard, like a form of extreme slang.

The dictator has spoken!  :D

Maybe he can tell us how the specific parameter of 1:3 was established. By whom, when and where?

Google is your friend:
"After some minor changes, International Morse Code was standardized at the International Telegraphy Congress in 1865 in Paris and was later made the standard by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU)."

Are you seriously going to argue that a 1:3 is not the "gold standard" to which we all aspire? And "weighting" applies equally to dots and dashes; it doesn't change the 1:3 ratio.

Hey, I'm a bug guy but at least I can understand that the "swing" isn't everyones cup of tea. A bad fist is a bad fist; just because I am able to decipher it doesn't make it good. It means I am good.

paul
Logged

W6MK

  • Posts: 4095
    • HomeURL
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #49 on: March 28, 2017, 11:41:10 AM »

Are you seriously going to argue that a 1:3 is not the "gold standard" to which we all aspire? And "weighting" applies equally to dots and dashes; it doesn't change the 1:3 ratio.

No, I haven't argued about the utility of 1:3. It's fine. I was just suggesting that an actual, working ratio might well vary from 1:2.8 to 1:3.2, or something like that, without egregious effect.

Some bug ops prefer "fat" dits to short, more percussive-sounding dits. The sound of a dit of course depends on more than
a keyer or a bug setting: TX keying characteristics and RX set-up (filter slopes, AGC settings) also matter, not to mention various types of noise interference and SNL.

Although weighting does apply to both dit and dah elements, some electronic keyers's weighting controls affect only dits.

Logged

W6MK

  • Posts: 4095
    • HomeURL
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #50 on: March 28, 2017, 11:57:04 AM »

Google is your friend:
"After some minor changes, International Morse Code was standardized at the International Telegraphy Congress in 1865 in Paris and was later made the standard by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU)."

There are more than a few things that are, essentially, ungoogleable.  :D

What I was suggesting is that there was a history of operating practice that established a sensibility or aesthetic about Morse code. Perhaps the proceedings of the 1865 ITC are available in a Parisian archive. At any rate if a 1:3 ratio was established as a standard, this has little to do with actual in-use ratios during over 100 years of manual code generation before and since.

Indeed it is likely that there were various opinions about what the standard ratio should be and 1:3 was arrived at as a functional compromise. This is how successful legislation should go.

I have no idea of how precise my bug ratios are. I know that they vary with overall sending speed because if I switch to a keyer above a certain rather high speed I find that my manual dahs have been too heavy.

I know when code sounds good to me. I get on-air feedback that my bug-sent code sounds good, just like a keyer, when I am well-aware that my weighting or ratio is not precisely to standard. Thus my desire to distinguish between what really goes on and what some people have established as an arbitrary standard of perfection.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2017, 11:59:25 AM by KE6EE »
Logged

N4AOF

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #51 on: March 28, 2017, 01:29:16 PM »

Even the "best" computer CW readers are nearly hopeless when conditions aren't absolutely perfect.  I'm terrible at CW and even I can copy better than most of the code reader software.  Code reader software tends to do better at faster speeds, but around 10-15WPM I can often pull out a signal where code reader software doesn't even recognize that there IS a signal.   I have to figure that if the code reader software can't get solid copy on the W1AW code practice, it's probably not going to do well on a live operator.
Logged

W7ASA

  • Member
  • Posts: 562
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #52 on: March 28, 2017, 02:34:27 PM »

1:3 +/- 0.0001%  Got it -

How about voice now - all those accents and regional vernaculars!

As a minimum standard, I'd suggest penalizing those who do not conform to the proper use of all wireless VOICE standards. ALL activity, regardless of national language,  MUST maintain proper English pronunciation and grammar - especially Americans ! (har har ) All nations on Earth, henceforth & forever, MUST speak at least Received Pronunciation or better, else loose your license. (sarcasm ). I would have MUCH preferred early 17th century, but my efforts were rebuffed.

No regional accents allowed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Received_Pronunciation


So It Is Written. So let it be DONE!




« Last Edit: March 28, 2017, 02:38:16 PM by W7ASA »
Logged

N9FB

  • Member
  • Posts: 2702
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #53 on: March 28, 2017, 02:49:22 PM »

current culture, dominated by what may well be an authoritarian robotic sensibility, often looks to ignore experience and history.

welcome my son

welcome
to
machine

 ;)
Logged
"When you throw dirt, you lose ground."

N9FB

  • Member
  • Posts: 2702
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #54 on: March 28, 2017, 02:58:15 PM »

Morse code has a specific parameter for the dit to dah length ratio which is 1:3. How about trying to do your best to respect that ratio?

Instead of being the elder statesmen for the preservation of the art, many of you seem proud that you can send and copy sloppy code.
there is only one standard. Everything else is for the members of the 'sloppy code club".

all hail the holy standard!!!  ::)  ???

there are some CW "standards" which I find absolutely beautiful -- among them: 

+ hearing dih daaaaah dit to signal receipt of what was just sent

+ hearing the last dah in the prosign BT elongated

and further, i would rather hear the above done with some slop than hear a musically dead mechanical keyer send those with perfect 3 to 1 dah to dit ratios.
in 1976 when i was first licensed those were the standards ;)



Logged
"When you throw dirt, you lose ground."

W6MK

  • Posts: 4095
    • HomeURL
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #55 on: March 28, 2017, 05:17:50 PM »


+ hearing dih daaaaah dit to signal receipt of what was just sent

+ hearing the last dah in the prosign BT elongated

and further, i would rather hear the above done with some slop than hear a musically dead mechanical keyer


As Irving Mills penned to a tune by Edward Kennedy Ellington in 1931 BK (Before Keyers): "It Don't Mean a Thing If It Ain't
Got That Swing."

For the millennial set vocalized in 2009 by Beyonce.

 ;)

Logged

AC2EU

  • Member
  • Posts: 2793
    • McVey Electronics
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #56 on: March 28, 2017, 05:58:55 PM »

I'm hardly trying to be a dictator, king, Pharaoh or anything of the like.
All I'm saying is if you want to be understood by the largest possible pool of possible QSOs, then sending something CLOSE to1:3 timing would be a smart thing to  do.
The sad thing is that you KNOW it sucks, but you LIKE that way and do it on purpose.
If it's just about bug OP to bug Op ( which I get the feeling that it is) then have at it with your own special version of code. It matters not to me!   ::)

I just spin the dial when I hear that bug nonsense anyway as many others do also.  ;D

I have seen musings here about the future of CW and how new OPs are "missing out" etc.
Unfortunately with all of the sloppy fists out there( yes, I'm one too- but I try to do better with every  QSO) it's not very easy for a new op to find a station sending reasonable - yes I only ask for reasonable Morse code.

Then when I say that it makes communication difficult because it's too far off the "norm" I get attacked by CW "elitists".
That tells me that you really don't care about the future of the art, but just your own ability to copy bad code.
Apparently the aim is not to teach others how to communicate properly, but to dazzle people with your "secret bug code".
Wow! I'm impressed. So now what?
CW Mentoring is dead in Amateur Radio. I guess it's all about thinking you are elite and telling other ops they are not as good as you because they can't copy your bad code! Great guys, good job!

Slang is fine if it is used sparingly , but if the whole conversation is slang, you probably will only understand a portion of it.

The bug guys talk about 'mechanical sounding keyers" . heck, bugs were an early attempt at mechanization! Keyers are the modern manifestation of the bug.
If anything mechanical sounding bothers you, why not ditch the bug and use a straight key? That would be COMPLETELY YOU!

Have you noticed that I'm NOT railing against straight key? That's because bad straight key is never as bad as bad bug crap!
Even bugs are OK -if you know how to use one, but most OPs don't.
Please stop peeing on leg and tell me it's raining!  ::)   ;D




W7ASA

  • Member
  • Posts: 562
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #57 on: March 28, 2017, 06:35:07 PM »

There are many ways to present an argument without 'having an argument.'. That's what we are doing here - having a discussion; perhaps even a debate, so let's continue..

As for 'fist' and how wide the span of variation is before it's too far: "close" is the key.  (har! "key" , get-it?!?!?") However, some Ops can digest just about any Morse, while for others it has to be nearly machine generated - it varies. charges of 'elitism' and secret codes by bug users (Morse 'code' is not a code at all; it is a cipher, but let's not get me started on that.)  fall on deaf ears.

1. Nobody is 'attacking' you.

2. If a ham is uncomfortable or unable to copy the operators' sending: move-on.  It's not like you're monitoring enemy strategic missile forces, or a maritime Sparky during the quiet periods each hour.  Have fun, move on.

3. What one ham may find terrible, another Op may find easy copy. This is especially true when the person has a real flair for Morse and when they have spent decades at the key professionally, because, believe me, if you think that you've heard bad Morse, it's far worse sitting a circuit filled with those who hate their jobs and using bottom of the barrel equipment in rough/tough conditions and YOU ( the receiving Op) are held personally responsible for letter perfect copy - not him. That makes 99.9% of ham sending sound easy on the ears. So yes, it's a hobby - move on.

4.  As for 'elitists' , here is a formula for Morse Ops:
         A. If they send faster than you can copy, they are obviously 'elitist snobs'.
         B. If they send too slow for you, they are obviously morons ,lids and (add insult here).
        - This categorization method works for me judging drivers in traffic too: TOO FAST=idiot / too slow=moron -

>>> For me personally, I loathe, but tolerate machine generated Morse, but that is my taste.  YMMV.

73 de Ray  ...______      . __________

"Anything that isn't a DIT is a DAH."  - VK5EEE ab Terra Australis

(Great fist in his YouTube sample, BTW.)





« Last Edit: March 28, 2017, 06:56:45 PM by W7ASA »
Logged

K0UA

  • Member
  • Posts: 9589
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #58 on: March 28, 2017, 08:36:59 PM »

I'm hardly trying to be a dictator, king, Pharaoh or anything of the like.
All I'm saying is if you want to be understood by the largest possible pool of possible QSOs, then sending something CLOSE to1:3 timing would be a smart thing to  do.
The sad thing is that you KNOW it sucks, but you LIKE that way and do it on purpose.
If it's just about bug OP to bug Op ( which I get the feeling that it is) then have at it with your own special version of code. It matters not to me!   ::)

I just spin the dial when I hear that bug nonsense anyway as many others do also.  ;D

I have seen musings here about the future of CW and how new OPs are "missing out" etc.
Unfortunately with all of the sloppy fists out there( yes, I'm one too- but I try to do better with every  QSO) it's not very easy for a new op to find a station sending reasonable - yes I only ask for reasonable Morse code.

Then when I say that it makes communication difficult because it's too far off the "norm" I get attacked by CW "elitists".
That tells me that you really don't care about the future of the art, but just your own ability to copy bad code.
Apparently the aim is not to teach others how to communicate properly, but to dazzle people with your "secret bug code".
Wow! I'm impressed. So now what?
CW Mentoring is dead in Amateur Radio. I guess it's all about thinking you are elite and telling other ops they are not as good as you because they can't copy your bad code! Great guys, good job!

Slang is fine if it is used sparingly , but if the whole conversation is slang, you probably will only understand a portion of it.

The bug guys talk about 'mechanical sounding keyers" . heck, bugs were an early attempt at mechanization! Keyers are the modern manifestation of the bug.
If anything mechanical sounding bothers you, why not ditch the bug and use a straight key? That would be COMPLETELY YOU!

Have you noticed that I'm NOT railing against straight key? That's because bad straight key is never as bad as bad bug crap!
Even bugs are OK -if you know how to use one, but most OPs don't.
Please stop peeing on leg and tell me it's raining!  ::)   ;D






Amen brother Amen.   What I do when I hear bad CW, is spin the dial.   Many here seem to enjoy and in fact revel in sending bad CW. Well good.  Let them enjoy it.  Their skill is obviously far greater than mine. They are into something I don't truly understand, and probably never will.  My sending skill is not the greatest, but I strive to make it better all the time.  To those that are "unapologetic"  and  are in to "sending their jazz", and love "sending that swing"  Well good for you.  Enjoy,  Me, I am going to QSY.  73  James K0UA
Logged
73  James K0UA

K8AXW

  • Posts: 7391
    • HomeURL
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #59 on: March 28, 2017, 09:35:48 PM »

Quote
>>> For me personally, I loathe, but tolerate machine generated Morse, but that is my taste.

For my tastes I prefer machine code! 

Quote
you think that you've heard bad Morse, it's far worse sitting a circuit filled with those who hate their jobs and using bottom of the barrel equipment in rough/tough conditions and YOU ( the receiving Op) are held personally responsible for letter perfect copy - not him. That makes 99.9% of ham sending sound easy on the ears. So yes, it's a hobby - move on.

I've had my fill of this and simply like to hear perfect code.

One other thing I'd like to mention....seldom does one hear "perfect" code from a hand key, bug or even a keyer.  But that's OK and to be expected but in my opinion to deliberately create a "swing" or other stupid crap to sound "cool" is unacceptable!

Go over and listen to 11 meters for a while and listen to the voice equivalent and then what I am trying to say will become a bit more clear.
Logged
A Pessimist is Never Disappointed!
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9   Go Up