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

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: IC-7300 to decode CW?  (Read 7998 times)
KENNETH
Member

Posts: 96




Ignore
« on: September 22, 2017, 01:29:53 PM »

Anyone know of a person who went into the 7300 firmware to enable/Hack it to decode CW? RTTY sure does work good. Thanks in advance.
Logged
KC4ZGP
Member

Posts: 1637




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2017, 03:08:31 PM »


A radio to decode Morse? Naww!!! That takes the fun out of it. Get rid of that radio.

Kraus
Logged
K0UA
Member

Posts: 1467




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2017, 07:13:04 PM »

Anyone know of a person who went into the 7300 firmware to enable/Hack it to decode CW? RTTY sure does work good. Thanks in advance.

Rtty is easy to decode.  It is machine sent.  One RTTY signal sounds pretty much like another RTTY signal for the most part.  Machine sent CW can be decoded by computer.  Human sent CW"?  well not so much.  depends on the human sending it. And some decoders are way better than others, but in general don't expect much from any computer decoding human sent CW.  I can't decode a lot of human sent CW even if it is in my speed range.  Some people should stick to phone or digital, either that or practice a bunch before enabling the break in function. I had 2 CW qso's yesterday.  Both were sent by straight key, one was a joy to copy, and the other was a major chore to copy due to me not always able to decide if I heard a dit or a dah.  How well do you think a machine will do?
Logged
KE2TR
Member

Posts: 635




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2017, 07:16:59 AM »

If you are tuned to the ARRL cw messages sent at different times during the day or night  a cw decoding system does work very well but its machine sent. I have at times to brush up on my copy use the decode feature in the Yaesu FTDX3000 to copy the ARRL bulletin and use it as a check on what I have copied on paper not looking at the screen and that feature does work but it really depends on the fist or keyer hand of the sender on anything else on the band but it has to be tuned just right plus the speed control set proper along with decent strength and no qrm. RTTY is far easier for any of these rigs which have a decode feature, most times its dead nut on, CW not so much. 
Logged
N9AOP
Member

Posts: 679




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2017, 08:58:38 AM »

Why would a person want to computer decode CW unless they couldn't hear?  Any of the digital modes are far more efficient for chatting or message handling. 
And on top of this, these folks set the speed at around 35.  I would much rather work an OP at 7-13 who is head copying.  Please stick to the RTTY as it is meant to be sent by machine or in 2017--by computer.
Art
Logged
WC4R
Member

Posts: 19


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #5 on: October 02, 2017, 06:34:43 PM »

Trade the 7300 for the Kenwood TS-590SG. CW decode is standard and works well. Equal price & performance.
Logged
KE2TR
Member

Posts: 635




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: October 05, 2017, 05:30:53 AM »

Unless the fellow sending has a perfect fist and the signal is strong without qrm forgetaboutit your wasting your time.
Logged
K3EY
Member

Posts: 32




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: October 05, 2017, 05:51:41 AM »

Trade the 7300 for the Kenwood TS-590SG. CW decode is standard and works well. Equal price & performance.

I have been doing 98 percent CW for 35 years. I don't bash someone who wants to use a CW decoder. I can send cw where a decoder reads it 100 percent, I am not alone. It doesn't make you a man if you can copy CW at 50wpm in your head. Being patient with the newbie and helping them along makes a lot more sense. If all we do is bash the people who find CW difficult, then down the road we will talking to ourselves.

As far as these radios mentioned here, I own both. Instead of trading your 7300, buy CWGET, which works as well as the TS590SG decoder.

dit dah dit
Logged
K3EY
Member

Posts: 32




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: October 05, 2017, 05:52:16 AM »

Unless the fellow sending has a perfect fist and the signal is strong without qrm forgetaboutit your wasting your time.

WRONG
Logged
K3EY
Member

Posts: 32




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: October 05, 2017, 05:53:37 AM »

Why would a person want to computer decode CW unless they couldn't hear?  Any of the digital modes are far more efficient for chatting or message handling. 
And on top of this, these folks set the speed at around 35.  I would much rather work an OP at 7-13 who is head copying.  Please stick to the RTTY as it is meant to be sent by machine or in 2017--by computer.
Art

Why would anybody of sound mind use Morse Code in 2017 is the better question
Logged
VE3WGO
Member

Posts: 170




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: October 05, 2017, 06:12:52 AM »


Why would anybody of sound mind use Morse Code in 2017 is the better question

Why?  Simply for the personal challenge and for fun.

These are the same reasons we still stretch ourselves and use ham radio to reach WAS or DXCC or VUCC, while our kids got DXCC and then some within a few days using their new multiplayer game in their game console.
Logged
KF7DS
Member

Posts: 298




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: October 05, 2017, 11:06:01 PM »

Why would a person want to computer decode CW unless they couldn't hear?  Any of the digital modes are far more efficient for chatting or message handling. 
And on top of this, these folks set the speed at around 35.  I would much rather work an OP at 7-13 who is head copying.  Please stick to the RTTY as it is meant to be sent by machine or in 2017--by computer.
Art

Why would anybody of sound mind use Morse Code in 2017 is the better question

Because it is fun and a challenge. Each to their own.
Logged
KD8IIC
Member

Posts: 673




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: October 06, 2017, 01:41:24 AM »

Using grey matter to decode Morse is good mental exercise for one thing.
It is a challenge to learn and use with accuracy vs typing skill.
I couldn't stand to look at a computer screen during a QSO.
Email just is not fun to me, maybe it turns you on, that's ok.
I'll take my Morse real. 
VY 73.
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!