-----Original Message----- >A code reader (computer) can't decode hand-sent Morse because it isn't >exact enough.
Or that the hand sent code isn't "machine-like" enough ... it relies on wet-ware detection....old fashioned technology. 73, Thom k3hrn ---------------------------- That's not just code either! I'm studying Dutch using Rosetta Stone software, which includes a voice analysis program to see if I'm doing all the "spits and gurgles" correctly. (That's why my Dutch XYL calls 'em.) Except that the software can't reliably read even her Dutch, and that's her first language! "Computers" - even the most elaborate and powerful ones - are really the most absurdly dumb things compared to what we humans can do with our organic "wetware". The mystique of computer superiority comes from the fact that there are a few useful things our brains aren't equipped to do that a computer can - such as total recall (if there are no system glitches). I try to send the most "perfect" CW I can because I recognize that many operators today never got beyond the basics of reading perfectly sent Morse. But copying keyers is awfully stale to me. It's like listening to computer-generated speech compared to listening to real people. Indeed, once you learn the "accents" it can be easier to make out in bad cdx than "machine perfect" stuff. IMHO, if someone wants to be really proficient at reading Morse, they need to practice, practice, practice reading a variety of not-so-perfect manual fists. That's the next step beyond learning to copy machine-perfect CW. Ron AC7AC _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [email protected] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
