Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Dee Flint wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:14:03 -0400, Dee Flint
wrote:

... Only the finest operators can send code well enough with a hand
key
that a computer can copy it anyway. Only exceptionally good operators
can
send well enough with a bug that a computer can copy it. Only very
good
operators can send well enough with paddles that computers can copy
it.
Basically a computer is good at copying computer generated code.

That may have been true in the 80's, back when people were just
getting started on the problem of copying CW with a personal computer,
but the algorithms have improved greatly since then, and they are now
quite good at copying manually generated Morse code. Even the area
where humans excelled - copying CW in the presence of QRM and QRN - is
now handled quite well by most modern algorithms. Currently, the most
popular program seems to be CwGet - a Windows program which Breakin
Magazine rates very highly. With gigahertz microprocessors and
built-in A/D converters, the modern PC is more than up to the task of
dealing with computations that were once only practical on mainframes.

I've tried CWGet and it doesn't copy the signals that I want to copy. It
still is subject to problems with QRN, QRM, QSB, and less than perfect
fists. It can't copy any of the signals distorted by aurora. So while
it
is the best of the available programs, it still falls far short of a good
human operator. And I'm speaking from experience with the program. It's
not up to the task that I want it to do.

You can sit and struggle with trying to train yourself to receive 20
wpm Morse, or you can download and install CwGet and start copying the
high speed CW nets immediately. There's no longer any real need for a
human to be in the decoding loop, a sure sign of just how
anachronistic human-decoded CW really is. Samuel Morse originally
designed his code to be copied by machine, so in reality we're only
catching up with what he intended to do way back in the 1800's.

Already tried it.

And dismissed it.

As I said while it is the best that is available, it
is
still far below the capabilities of a human operator.

Correction. ...a few human operators.

I've tried it
under a
wide range of conditions and CWGet still needs a pretty good signal to
function.

Dee, N8UZE

Morse Myth #119: All CW signals are good signals (Its the corollary of
Morse Myth #1: CW always gets through).


Unrelated to my comments.

You would like to think that, but without efforts from folks like Carl,
Bill, Len, hans, myself and others, you would still be repeating such
myths, and would never make statements such as "Not all CW signals are
good."

You can thank us, but that's probably not very likely.

No one has said all CW signals are good.

And they aren't.

If they were always good, CWGet
would always work, which it doesn't. The ones who tout the software
solution are those who wish that it would always work.

And those who dismiss the software solution think all amateur operators
are superb morsemen.

In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has its
advantages and disadvantages.

If you were to compare and contrast all existing modes, it think it is
likely that you would claim that CW is the best mode.

The extremists on each side don't want to
hear that.

Dee, N8UZE

Because of the efforts made to dismiss countless Morse Myths over the
years, you were just now able to state that not all CW signals are good
without 1x2 PCTAs pooh poohing such talk.