Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Bad CW  (Read 34842 times)

VK5EEE

  • Member
  • Posts: 1215
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #75 on: March 29, 2017, 11:49:51 PM »

Ooopps, well its the Modern Era. Where students are in control of the curriculum, not the teacher. Where the young know more and better than the old. Where disrespect for elders is cool.
dit dit dit daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
As a neophyte, I'm disappointed to read about so many talented/experienced OPs promoting sloppy bug CW!
That they are not, would not dawn on you of course, you would be right, and they all wrong.

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?
You clearly don't reach much on this forum, or know much about CW, or, you do read but it doesn't go in. 1:3 ratio is only for one particular "Morse" Code and it is not necessarily the best.

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.
The modern music student saying that Mozart music lacks precision.

there is only one standard.
That of AC2EU

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.
And which version of English is the right one? Your American drawl, Oxford English, the clipped English of South Africa?

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!
Brainwashing that there is only one Morse Code. There isn't. And those that for decades of their lives every day spent 8 or more hours sending messages non stop, are proof that there are better ways to send CW to ensure lack of fatigue, increased intelligibility, increased accuracy, and increased throughput.

A bad fist is a bad fist.
Indeed there are bad fists, but that definition is more widely abused and misused than is fact. If you cannot copy CW from a particular fist, you more often than not need to question your skills, not that fist.

If you can't get your bug under control, for God's sake USE A KEYER! 
Bug operators can prove just how much they have a bug under control by sending the exact same music of non-1:3 CW in a long strong of 1:3, 1:4.7, 1:8.2, 1:5.6, 1:7 in an exact repitition, thus proving it is deliberate choice. If you were a good student you'd know Szondy's Bug Theorem: "Anything that is not a dit is a dah".
Logged
Long Live Real Human CW and wishing you many happy CW QSO - 77 - CW Forever

Support CW and join CW clubs. QTT: FIST#1124, HSC#1437, UFT#728, RCWC#982, SKCC#15007, CWOPS#1714, 30CW#1,

VK5EEE

  • Member
  • Posts: 1215
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #76 on: March 29, 2017, 11:51:22 PM »

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.


+3 Beautifully said.
Logged
Long Live Real Human CW and wishing you many happy CW QSO - 77 - CW Forever

Support CW and join CW clubs. QTT: FIST#1124, HSC#1437, UFT#728, RCWC#982, SKCC#15007, CWOPS#1714, 30CW#1,

VK5EEE

  • Member
  • Posts: 1215
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #77 on: March 29, 2017, 11:55:26 PM »

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.
+3 absolutely right, it was a comprimise, better than the 1:2 hitherto, better than 1:4, but it could easily have been 1:2.5 or 1:2.75 or even 1:4. I too am happy with 1:3 but only because I learned it that way and that forms the "standard". The American telegraphists were very happy with 1:2 and to them 1:3 no doubt sounded long and unnecessary except in poor conditions.
Logged
Long Live Real Human CW and wishing you many happy CW QSO - 77 - CW Forever

Support CW and join CW clubs. QTT: FIST#1124, HSC#1437, UFT#728, RCWC#982, SKCC#15007, CWOPS#1714, 30CW#1,

VK5EEE

  • Member
  • Posts: 1215
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #78 on: March 29, 2017, 11:57:43 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.
+3
Logged
Long Live Real Human CW and wishing you many happy CW QSO - 77 - CW Forever

Support CW and join CW clubs. QTT: FIST#1124, HSC#1437, UFT#728, RCWC#982, SKCC#15007, CWOPS#1714, 30CW#1,

VK5EEE

  • Member
  • Posts: 1215
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #79 on: March 30, 2017, 12:14:19 AM »

Many great posts N9KX, W7ASA, KE6EE, we're on the same wave length lol
Though the contrarians have a right to their opinion and thanks too for yours AC2EU and if you'll tolerate my comments again too :-)
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.
But I agree on this and I'm sure the others too: just as we would not send CW more than 14WPM if a QRS station is sending 14WPM, so too we would not send certain styles if we are in QSO with a keyer CW who may not be able to copy anything other than 1:3 CW -- for we DO KNOW that there are an awful lot of such people out there :-)

The sad thing is that you KNOW it sucks, but you LIKE that way and do it on purpose.
On the contrary, we KNOW that our QSO partner is having fun copying it and you do not know what we know.

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!   ::)
Indeed and there we will all agree once again

I just spin the dial when I hear that bug nonsense anyway as many others do also.  ;D
And big thanks to you for that, for some are LID who come up and make smart comments without giving call sign, we have all experienced that once in a while, e.g. when sending QRQ "where is the fire?"
I too spin the dial when I hear 5NN TU, or when I hear DCW. That's our freedom -- CW is like MUSIC not everyone likes ALL music. In fact very FEW do.

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.
OK but there is your answer: you are new to CW and when new, you can indeed only copy a limited range of CW.

Then when I say that it makes communication difficult because it's too far off the "norm" I get attacked by CW "elitists".
Not at all, go back and read my own "attacks" and you'll see this is not the case. You are being "attacked" for "attacking" the windmills or wrong things that aren't attackable :-)

That tells me that you really don't care about the future of the art, but just your own ability to copy bad code.
No, it tells us that you don't really care to try and find out what we are really talking about, since you are learning.

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?
Again, this is just absurd. You are saying an acrobat should not do acrobatics because some in the audience cannot do it, so they should do simple push ups instead so as not to make those others feel bad -- why WOULD they?! They don't because they recognize talent, and accept that they lack it in that area. It's natural. What is not natural is you who don't know, getting it all wrong, and trying to say that we are promoting sloppy and secret codes etc.

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!
Absolutely no doubt you count me, and KE6EE, W7ASA and others in that elite. I do a lot of mentoring myself.

Slang is fine if it is used sparingly , but if the whole conversation is slang, you probably will only understand a portion of it.
Nah munn, ya tahk rass bamba blahd cleet munn, ka me brudda ken over stand wa me ah seh, un yoo dohn, dahn meen a ting kah me nah tahk te ya rass claht, me tahk to me brudda an e geh me wun undrad percen!

SNIP -- it gets boring brah! The arrogance and ignorance is astounding :-) no doubt you'll think the same, but who is it can copy ALL types of CW and QRQ too? You or us?






[/quote]
Logged
Long Live Real Human CW and wishing you many happy CW QSO - 77 - CW Forever

Support CW and join CW clubs. QTT: FIST#1124, HSC#1437, UFT#728, RCWC#982, SKCC#15007, CWOPS#1714, 30CW#1,

VK5EEE

  • Member
  • Posts: 1215
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #80 on: March 30, 2017, 12:23:18 AM »

Sorry guys, I can't do anything fancy.
https://youtu.be/tq0efkO26HA

I admire all of your videos. 9V1VV, your Morse is easily read by a human being but I suppose that VU's software just produced garbage. We haven't put anything but Good CW on here. Can any of you send bad morse, unless its after too much red, which I rarely have in the shack
73, Andrew
Lovely OM, and thanks K8AXW and others for various opinions. I too like perfect CW and yes I CAN AND DO send it often using a keyer, including the spacing and even inter word spacing. The "stacatto" I agree was sent with a keyboard as much QRQ is, and that's not great, but to me perfectly intelligible. Back to your video Andrew, I love that CHIRP too :-) how I loved those days when different chirps were the norm! None of the running together was a problem, hand key sent CW CAN run some characters together depending where they are. A keyer: NO  NO NO never run together. And never run TR or KE together. Etc... it's complex, but you know, and your fist sounds great.
Logged
Long Live Real Human CW and wishing you many happy CW QSO - 77 - CW Forever

Support CW and join CW clubs. QTT: FIST#1124, HSC#1437, UFT#728, RCWC#982, SKCC#15007, CWOPS#1714, 30CW#1,

M0LEP

  • Member
  • Posts: 554
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #81 on: March 30, 2017, 04:43:35 AM »

I'm not QRQ. Hell, some of the time I barely make it up to QRS. On this morning's GB2CW Morse practice session I got one word wrong at 8wpm (which is one more than usual) and 12 words wrong at 12wpm, which is worse than my average, so I'm definitely not at my best, and I wasn't expecting to get much, but I gave the various video clips a listen anyway, just to see what the fuss was about...

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

I'm hearing characters just fine, but they're coming at me a bit fast for me to get solid copy this morning. Maybe on a good day when my head's not full of cotton wool...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjqT8PSqG_w

Neat party trick, and no problem reading any of it (though it wasn't that challenging, content-wise). ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhyF8SDENNQ&t=125s

A very pretty key. The keying is a bit fast for me, especially the dits, which seem a lot faster than the dahs. This one was definitely the hardest of the keying examples to get any sense out of, and if you answered my call like this then I expect I'd have just as much trouble getting your call as the VU* station did.

https://youtu.be/tq0efkO26HA

My ears have trouble with the clicks and tone variations, but I'd probably manage to copy it on a good day, especially over-the-air (without the clicks). This morning, however, it was a fraction too fast, and I'd need to make plenty of use of the pause button to copy it.

The other two Morse samples posted so far aren't (as far as I know) keyed by anyone reading this, but I figured I'd mention them anyway...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgT7aJKsek0

...and that's a classic. ;)

www.v-d-r.net/images/STACATTO.mp3

That was, indeed, quite a struggle to listen to, never mind copy.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2017, 04:47:30 AM by M0LEP »
Logged

GW3OQK

  • Member
  • Posts: 469
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #82 on: March 30, 2017, 05:29:05 AM »

BAD CW from GW3OQK! I am shocked! I had not recognised my spaces between words were too short. I was just rattling along for myself.  Space between letters to be 5 dots, and between words 7 dots, minimum.

How's this?  www.v-d-r.net/images/GW3OQK_KEYING.mp3

YouTube can be slowed down by the way. Click the "gear wheel" symbol.

Thanks for the report, really appreciated.
73, Andrew
Logged

AC2EU

  • Member
  • Posts: 2793
    • McVey Electronics
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #83 on: March 30, 2017, 06:04:06 AM »

VK5EEE:

You have dome a brilliant job of proving many of my points with your most recent diatribe(s).
1) Many who send bad CW do so on purpose and don't give a damn about the 1:3 ratio.
2) For them, it's not about communication, but 'elitism'
3) You are unconcerned about those who are trying to learn CW properly.

Your talents are impressive, but it's all about YOU. Most people , especially me, are not at that level and  have learned the standard 1:3 ratio. We would appreciate it if others would try to send some semblance of that standard. ( I now know that that's not going to happen because there are those who think they are "acrobats" on the air)
I suppose CW snobs  would not want to stoop to the level of CW standards in order to communicate with the likes of me and my ilk anyway. I get where you are coming from now...

BTW, during your multi-key demo, where was the space for a response?
( You were having so much fun by yourself that you didn't want to talk to anybody !)

Thank you for the insights.

VK5EEE

  • Member
  • Posts: 1215
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #84 on: March 30, 2017, 07:29:46 AM »

How's this?  www.v-d-r.net/images/GW3OQK_KEYING.mp3
QRK5 professional sending. Perfect 1:3 it is not but needs not be, this is the type of sending that gets QTC through. The spacing is not exaggerated, in fact the interword spacing is still shorter than "official" 7 dits, to my ear, but is no problem -- few OPs use the full 7-dit spacing. It's a nice exercise being conducted here where folks can comment and give feedback, though we're never going to get agreement of those who haven't yet mastered CW but think they know what is good CW :)
Logged
Long Live Real Human CW and wishing you many happy CW QSO - 77 - CW Forever

Support CW and join CW clubs. QTT: FIST#1124, HSC#1437, UFT#728, RCWC#982, SKCC#15007, CWOPS#1714, 30CW#1,

VK5EEE

  • Member
  • Posts: 1215
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #85 on: March 30, 2017, 07:42:33 AM »

VK5EEE:

You have dome a brilliant job of proving many of my points with your most recent diatribe(s).
1) Many who send bad CW do so on purpose and don't give a damn about the 1:3 ratio.
2) For them, it's not about communication, but 'elitism'
3) You are unconcerned about those who are trying to learn CW properly.
I think you'll find that others reading this thread and other posts by me will be able to see very clearly that none of the above 3 statements of yours are true. This is why I wrote my other post that seems to have gone over your head. You seem to be so sure of yourself (in spite of not having mastered CW) that you take any corrections/contradictions to your position, as proof of veracity. There really is no way to overcome that, that I'm aware of. One really cannot enlighten anyone who is unaware of their position. I speak here of a specific field and your station in it. I'm sure there are many things you would be more the expert in, but the conversation here is CW. It's pure ignorance on your part, sorry to say.

BTW, during your multi-key demo, where was the space for a response?
( You were having so much fun by yourself that you didn't want to talk to anybody !)
It's these kind of statements that lead me to seriously wonder about IQ in general, or literacy, or ability to comprehend what is being written and done. Why on earth would you think this is a live on-air CQ, obviously it was not, and yes, it was for FUN, and to demonstrate that it is possible, at some speed ranges, to send "perfect 1:3 CW" on all 3 keys -- I'd add cootie to that too. Seriously. DOH? DUH.

Thank you ifor the insights.
I don't know if that is sarcasm, or sincere, if the latter, how can it be insights when you accept none of them, and get about every single thing I say (and others in this thread) completely wrong, and don't seem to have learned a single thing from the conversation. That is not the meaning of "insight"! Perhaps you mean "thank you for your opinions"... and I don't mean to insult you, and you should not read any malice or anger into my post, on the contrary, it's dispassionate observation and undiplomatic responses not that they will do much good, but hopefully contribute to the conversation and help you to realize that perhaps you are grabbing at straws, tilting at windmills, and barking up the wrong trees!


[/quote]
Logged
Long Live Real Human CW and wishing you many happy CW QSO - 77 - CW Forever

Support CW and join CW clubs. QTT: FIST#1124, HSC#1437, UFT#728, RCWC#982, SKCC#15007, CWOPS#1714, 30CW#1,

W7ASA

  • Member
  • Posts: 562
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #86 on: March 30, 2017, 08:01:58 AM »

So, let me get this straight. I speak maybe fifty words of Edo region Japanese. Because of my poor working vocabulary, I cannot easily follow the conversations of native Japanese, AC2EU feels the reasons for my problems are :

1.  It's their fault .

2.  They are linguistic elitists.

2.1. They are speaking this way to purposefully keep me ignorant.

3.  They are required to alter their real, spoken native language to my neophyte standards as found in my personal version of a tourists' phrase book.


Nonsense.

My pleasure is to learn their language as spoken by them and to be grateful when native speakers assist me voluntarily : which they are NOT REQUIRED to do. It would be my being the student and their courtesy which would - in time - allow me to understand their language and local variations - not only Edo.

It is the epitome of self deception and rudeness to say: ' I am new here, don't easily understand you, so you people are wrong. '.



Learning begins with listening.


Ray.

« Last Edit: March 30, 2017, 08:10:10 AM by W7ASA »
Logged

K8AXW

  • Posts: 7391
    • HomeURL
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #87 on: March 30, 2017, 08:46:27 AM »

Andrew: 

Quote
How's this?  www.v-d-r.net/images/GW3OQK_KEYING.mp3

Now you're talking!!  That was beautiful and I head copied the complete message with ease....and pleasure!  Note I didn't say anything about "perfect."  I think very few can send perfect code. 

Rather your last was "perfect" I can't say nor will I attempt to find out or for that matter, couldn't care less. 

All I can say is that it was a pleasure to listen to!

I am also pleased that you wasn't offended by my critical comments. 

Keep sending like you did with the last link and there's no doubt in my mind your contact count will increase dramatically!

(Additional comments:  Hitting the "pause button," slowing down a transmission artificially in order to read it; the need to have a good day or 2 cups of coffee before the code makes any sense, is so much nonsense.  That includes the comment that a keyboard can run characters together, etc. is nonsense as well. If the software that runs the CPU is written correctly everything is perfectly spaced.)
Logged
A Pessimist is Never Disappointed!

K3STX

  • Member
  • Posts: 1697
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #88 on: March 30, 2017, 09:02:09 AM »


How's this?  www.v-d-r.net/images/GW3OQK_KEYING.mp3

73, Andrew

Wow, I had to check and see that the Marconi 365A was a straight key!!! Amazing fist, I thought it was a keyer at first. Now THAT'S good stuff.

paul
Logged

AC2EU

  • Member
  • Posts: 2793
    • McVey Electronics
RE: Bad CW
« Reply #89 on: March 30, 2017, 09:24:25 AM »


Thank you ifor the insights.
I don't know if that is sarcasm, or sincere, if the latter, how can it be insights when you accept none of them, and get about every single thing I say (and others in this thread) completely wrong, and don't seem to have learned a single thing from the conversation. That is not the meaning of "insight"! Perhaps you mean "thank you for your opinions"... and I don't mean to insult you, and you should not read any malice or anger into my post, on the contrary, it's dispassionate observation and undiplomatic responses not that they will do much good, but hopefully contribute to the conversation and help you to realize that perhaps you are grabbing at straws, tilting at windmills, and barking up the wrong trees!
[/quote]

I truly feel that I have gained some insight into the "bad bug" phenomena  and the mindset of those who send that way.

It comes down to; "they do it because they can".

Yes, I am "new here" with CW and it has been made painfully clear to me that others possess skills that are far superior to my own.  
However, despite my ignorance, I know what I can copy and what I can't and why I have difficulty with it.

I can also tell you that I have  NO aspirations to use a bug, but if I did, I would endeavor to have the dits and dahs in the correct ratio. ( I'm sure this line is going to get quoted!!).    

Ok, I get that you can copy ANYTHING, because you have been at it for a very very long time. OPs who are new to the art learn standard CW and when trying to copy fists that are too far off the norm it makes things unnecessarily difficult.

It's clear that our plight as newbies is of little concern here. ( ...and you wonder why they dropped the code requirement?)

As for dialect;  If any language gets too far off the 'standard' it makes communication more  difficult, that's all I'm saying.

That's MY perspective. . .no minds have been persuaded, mine nor yours, so we have to agree to disagree.  ;D

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9   Go Up