Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
I'd be willing to argue that point in favor
of the computer.


Actually, you would lose such an argument.

I don't think so, at least under most common operating conditions.

There are many hams who have
proven that they can decipher better than the computer. The computer
hardware or software requires the following characteristics in the received
transmission to work:

1. A strong signal

Signal to noise ratio would be important, to be sure, however with the
proper application of some limited computing power I'm sure one could
construct a detector that would work with seriously low SNR. It is
amazing what DSP's can do now days..

2. No distortion on the signal such as occurs from aurora, meteor scatter,
etc.

Again, I've seen spectral displays that clearly show CW transmissions
that could *not* be heard.

3. The code sent is nearly equal in quality to that sent by a computer.
Some one using paddles may achieve that but if they are sending with a
manual key or bug, that is highly unlikely.

Sending code is not in question. Surely a computer is able to open and
close the keying faster than a transmitter can possibly transmit.
Also, remember that the faster you key, the higher bandwidth your
signal will require and the higher the SNR will theoretically need to
be for it to be decoded at the receiving end.

I have frequently been able to copy better than the computer and my code
skills are quite modest. The only time it beats me is when the code meets
the above three criteria and is too fast for me to copy.

I would contend that the software you are using is not utilizing the
inputted signal at it's full potential. I've seen audio processing
techniques that could pull out inaudible signals that where more
complicated than CW would be.

I would also ask if you where copying random characters or where you
able to "fill in the gaps" by using the context? The latter would be a
very different problem for a computer to solve.

I'll be willing to bet that there won't be much improvement over CW in
the raw "get the message though under bad conditions" power with the
new digital modes using the same bandwidth as CW. Simple is
under-rated in my book.


I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Did you leave something
out?


I'm saying that if you pick any digital mode, restrict the bandwidth to
that of the CW signal with the same data rate, keep the SNR the same
with the same error rates, CW will be about as good as you can get.
Not bad for an operating mode that has been around as long as CW.