I think no one here would argue that human brain is the best decoder. The original question, if I remember correctly, is about how to use the decoding function in KX3 to generate the best result. So, let us move on the way to get a better decode from KX3 or other softwares (may be we don't even get a conclusive answer).
Now, let me move back to a few years ago in Tokyo Ham Fair. A famous Japanese morse code club (or die hard fans) demonstrated CW related subjects in their booth in the ham fair for many years. However, for that particular year, they changed and demonstrated software CW decoding and sending CW by keyboard. I was shocked at that time and asked why die hard CW fans did not use human brain. I was told: 1. they wanted to promote CW by letting the new comers tasting a bit of fun (lowering the entry barrier); 2. everyone can enjoy CW no matter whether using straight key, paddles or even key board Ham population is decreasing (or CW operators) in most countries. We are looking for ways to attract new blood (also new CW operators). Our hobby can only survive if we keep on having new blood. This is my 2 cents. 73 Johnny VR2XMC ________________________________ 寄件人︰ Phil Hystad <[email protected]> 收件人︰ [email protected] 副本(CC)︰ elecraft <[email protected]> 傳送日期︰ 2014年04月21日 (週一) 10:58 PM 主題︰ Re: [Elecraft] Text Decode Issues Ditto! Sort of... I agree that CW is a manual, using ear and head tools, and not using an eye tools. Otherwise, what is the difference between CW, RTTY, PSK, or whatever in terms of enjoyment (certainly there are differences in other physical aspects). But, there are times when I hear a DX station that is racing along at 40 wpm and I just need a little help -- I mean, was that the letter L in his call sign or the letters AI -- often to these lesser skilled ears, it is hard to tell. Indeed, as per this discussion, even the decode process can't discern accurately. So, there are some situations where I will turn on CW decoding to pick up someone that is desirable yet not discernible. Would I use decode in a rag chew -- No. 73, phil, K7PEH On Apr 21, 2014, at 7:11 AM, AG0N-3055 <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 09:32:59 -0400, Stephen Roberts wrote: > >> Yes, and it's curious that there are clearly better decoders out there. >> I built an Open QRP rig last year and the decoder was phenomenal... >> much better than the KX3, so assuming this is a software issue, is this >> something that the Elecraft engineers are looking at? > > Dumb question time. Why don't you just learn to operate CW the way most > people do? CW is supposed to be a manual mode. It is an ART. Copying > CW is a part of the tradition of amateur radio. If you have to have > perfect CW to be decoded, it's the same as or worse than RTTY. Your > brain can decode CW with missing characters and elements quite nicely. > > Use your head! > > Gary > -- > http://ag0n.net/ > 3055: http://ag0n.net/irlp/3055 > NodeOp Help Page: http://ag0n.net/irlp > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[email protected] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net/ > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Message delivered to [email protected] ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[email protected] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net/ Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to [email protected] ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[email protected] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to [email protected]
