[Elecraft] K3 Text Decoder

[John Ragle]

Fred is absolutely correct when he says "CW is a pretty tough decode for 
machinery." Consider the difference between a RTTY signal (or a BPSK 
signal, etc) and a CW signal...For the former types of signal, there is 
what one might call "background information" present (the "idle" signal) 
even when no text is being sent. This is used to sync the decode 
process. For CW the situation is entirely different: when the flow of 
alphanumeric information stops, there is nothing present for the 
machinery to "look at," at all...just spectral noise. IF the CW is sent 
with rock-solid precision, as from a tape, then the decode proceeds OK, 
but for ordinary CW, even with a keyer, there are random pauses, spacing 
errors, etc. This partial inability to decode CW is not the fault of the 
K3 -- FLDIGI has the same problem, and for (I suspect) the same reason. 
On HF I am mostly a CW or other digital person, and CW copy is, IMHO, 
best done by the little grey cells.

John Ragle -- W1ZI

=====

On 5/26/2012 12:22 AM, Fred Jensen wrote:
> On 5/25/2012 9:13 PM, John_N1JM wrote:
>> I'm a little disappointed in the text decoder for cw. It works fine for rtty.
>> Anyone got any comments about this?
> I don't use it, I'm sort of CW-only, but I have played with it.  For CW,
> it is fairly picky about bandwidth, the threshold setting when you hold h
> TEXT DECODE, and general conditions.  CW is a pretty tough decode for
> machinery.
>
> 73,
>
> Fred K6DGW
> - Northern California Contest Club
> - CU in the 2012 Cal QSO Party 6-7 Oct 2012
> - www.cqp.org
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
>

-- 
Sent from my lovely old Dell XPS 420