running vs 4.67 | 1.115 | 2.81 | 2.81 | 1.03
I remember there was a discussion about improving the K3's cw decoding after
some agc upgrade that took place a long time ago. I wonder if what we have now
is the 'final' version that we are just going to have to settle for?
I ask because I am
, it works
fine.
...bill nr4c
-Original Message-
From: Sam Morgan [mailto:k5oai@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:45 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Elecraft] K3 CWT decoding update please
running vs 4.67 | 1.115 | 2.81 | 2.81 | 1.03
I remember there was a discussion
-
From: Sam Morgan [mailto:k5oai@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:45 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Elecraft] K3 CWT decoding update please
running vs 4.67 | 1.115 | 2.81 | 2.81 | 1.03
I remember there was a discussion about improving the K3's cw decoding after
some agc
And CW that is not perfectly sent will give most any CW decoder fits.
The best CW decoder is the human brain, it is more tolerant of
imperfections in timing and band conditions than any other decoder.
I just tried the K3 decoder on a W1AW bulletin broadcast, and with the
QRN on the 40 meter
So...Just Learn Morse Code
73, Deni F5VJC
On 20 June 2013 00:00, Don Wilhelm w3...@embarqmail.com wrote:
And CW that is not perfectly sent will give most any CW decoder fits.
The best CW decoder is the human brain, it is more tolerant of
imperfections in timing and band conditions than any
is irregular
rhythm
or speed. Bad spacing is also a problem. But if adjusted well, it works
fine.
...bill nr4c
-Original Message-
From: Sam Morgan [mailto:k5oai@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:45 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Elecraft] K3 CWT decoding
With respect, I take exception to quality. It's how close to machine sent
CW it is that makes all the difference when trying to use a machine to
decode it.
Just like computer generated voices, machine perfect is often not as
pleasant to hear or as easy to understand by humans as human-generated
not very helpful to have garbage code displayed on the screen
when trying to demonstrate the ' CWT feature' of the K3
to someone new to the hobby and not yet proficient in cw :-(
On 6/19/2013 5:12 PM, F5vjc wrote:
So...Just Learn Morse Code
73, Deni F5VJC
--
GB 73
K5OAI
Sam Morgan
If that is the case, tune to a machine sent CW signal under good
conditions (low QRN and no QRM) - the decode will be good.
Even if there are errors in the decoded CW, that should be an indication
that decoded CW is not perfect, and thus an encouragement to learn CW in
order to fill in the
I just loaded the latest firmware a few weeks ago and was impressed with how
well CW decode now works. My best results were with NB and NR off, AGC-S, RF
gain turned down so ambient noise just kicks the meter, THR=AUTO, speed 5-40.
Use the CWT auto-spot to tune and narrow the passband to
Those of us who head copy CW find Farnsworth code to be very
aggravating because we are hearing words instead of characters.
Military Operators don't like it either because they can't tell where
5 letter code groups start and end.
73,
Tom
Amateur Radio Operator N5GE
ARRL Lifetime Member
QCWA
Well said and a good way to get those words out there by themselves.
I've been doing that and was stunned at how many words I've been
running together ;o)
73,
Tom
Amateur Radio Operator N5GE
ARRL Lifetime Member
QCWA Lifetime Member
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:41:18 -0700, Brian Hunt
12 matches
Mail list logo
