"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
wrote:
...
Actually, without skill in morse, you simply will not be able to
participate
in QSO's with a large subset of the stations you listed. A lot of good
DX
(and QRP etc.) is only available in Morse (sometimes only in the extra
class
sections).


Actually, that is outrageous.

With any decent code reader software and the audio of your rig into the
line in of your sound card in your computer, you can copy and send CW
much, MUCH faster, concisely and intelligibly than any "CW Freak" out
there ... you can send CW so fast, they only WISH they could copy it!

... technology, ain't it wonderful? Welcome to the new millennium!

Well, thank you. And Im glad to see you enjoy the new toys that Santa Claus
gave you.

Stefan Wolfe wrote:
...
Well, thank you. And Im glad to see you enjoy the new toys that Santa Claus
gave you.



Let me give you the complete picture, he left it under my tree about
1996 ...

JS

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
Stefan Wolfe wrote:
... Well, thank you. And Im glad to see you enjoy the new toys that Santa
Claus gave you.

Let me give you the complete picture, he left it under my tree about
1996 ...

I think you are serious...you think computer-generated/received CW is really
some advanced technology of the new millenium and you got your first taste
of it in 1996. Have you ever thought that that there were far more
"advanced" digital modes, superior to and more efficinet than CW, as long as
one decided to connect a PC to a radio? I personally ignore computer
CW....CW is not meant for a computer nor will it ever be...it is a human
mode that has a "body language" to it that computers are not good at
reading. For computers, PSK31 is a very simple, far superior machine mode to
computer CW in every way. If you said "PSK31, welcome to the new millenium"
I could go along with that. But computer generated CW? Sort of like
attaching a lawn mower engine to a bicycle and calling it a motorcycle,
isn't it? But far be it from me to criticize your toys. ;-)

Stefan Wolfe wrote:

I think you are serious...you think computer-generated/received CW is really
some advanced technology of the new millenium and you got your first taste
of it in 1996. Have you ever thought that that there were far more
"advanced" digital modes, superior to and more efficinet than CW, as long as
one decided to connect a PC to a radio? I personally ignore computer
CW....CW is not meant for a computer nor will it ever be...it is a human
mode that has a "body language" to it that computers are not good at
reading. For computers, PSK31 is a very simple, far superior machine mode to
computer CW in every way. If you said "PSK31, welcome to the new millenium"
I could go along with that. But computer generated CW? Sort of like
attaching a lawn mower engine to a bicycle and calling it a motorcycle,
isn't it? But far be it from me to criticize your toys. ;-)



PSK31 is obsolete ... and much too slow to be useful.

What software do you use to encode/decode and xfer mp3's and videos with
on the bands? What encryption method (algorithm) do you prefer? mp3?
ogg-vorbis? Do you use the same method for your speech packets? Do you
use variable bit encoding? Are you aware that ogg-vorbis is open source
and can be freely used?

You have missed the whole point, does the above help clarify it for you?

JS

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
Stefan Wolfe wrote:

I think you are serious...you think computer-generated/received CW is
really some advanced technology of the new millenium and you got your
first taste of it in 1996. Have you ever thought that that there were far
more "advanced" digital modes, superior to and more efficinet than CW, as
long as one decided to connect a PC to a radio? I personally ignore
computer CW....CW is not meant for a computer nor will it ever be...it is
a human mode that has a "body language" to it that computers are not good
at reading. For computers, PSK31 is a very simple, far superior machine
mode to computer CW in every way. If you said "PSK31, welcome to the new
millenium" I could go along with that. But computer generated CW? Sort of
like attaching a lawn mower engine to a bicycle and calling it a
motorcycle, isn't it? But far be it from me to criticize your toys. ;-)



PSK31 is obsolete ... and much too slow to be useful.

What software do you use to encode/decode and xfer mp3's and videos with
on the bands? What encryption method (algorithm) do you prefer? mp3?
ogg-vorbis? Do you use the same method for your speech packets? Do you
use variable bit encoding? Are you aware that ogg-vorbis is open source
and can be freely used?

You have missed the whole point, does the above help clarify it for you?

You missed my point. Psk31 is an example of a computer mode that connects
directly to a PC sound card, like "computer" CW. I did not need to go into
more sophisticated modes to trump your example of electronic CW as being new
millenium high technology. It was a very poor example.

Psk31 is just one a newer mode that is simpler than computer CW and better.

BTW, it is not obsolete. Check 14.070 MHz when the band is open (or not)
when you get a chance.

Anyway, I do not understand your query; are you saying that mp3 is an
"encryption" method? I thought it was an audio codec (like ogg vorbis). Yes,
I am aware that ogg vorbis is open source. Do you wish to change the thread
to discuss audio codecs?

If you intended to discuss encryption as a separate topic, you had better
not be planning on sending "encypted" communications over the bands unless
you are controlling satellite telemetry from your earth station.

Or are you saying that sending audio codecs over the bands is your best
example of new millenium high technology? That is being done right now and
you can buy it pre-packaged in the latest Kenwood rice box if you wish.

Stefan Wolfe wrote:

You missed my point. Psk31 is an example of a computer mode that connects
directly to a PC sound card, like "computer" CW. I did not need to go into
more sophisticated modes to trump your example of electronic CW as being new
millenium high technology. It was a very poor example.

Psk31 is just one a newer mode that is simpler than computer CW and better.

BTW, it is not obsolete. Check 14.070 MHz when the band is open (or not)
when you get a chance.

Anyway, I do not understand your query; are you saying that mp3 is an
"encryption" method? I thought it was an audio codec (like ogg vorbis). Yes,
I am aware that ogg vorbis is open source. Do you wish to change the thread
to discuss audio codecs?

If you intended to discuss encryption as a separate topic, you had better
not be planning on sending "encypted" communications over the bands unless
you are controlling satellite telemetry from your earth station.

Or are you saying that sending audio codecs over the bands is your best
example of new millenium high technology? That is being done right now and
you can buy it pre-packaged in the latest Kenwood rice box if you wish.



You still miss the point. To chat with the OT CW'ers you need to key a
xmitter from either a port on the sound card, usb, serial, or parallel
port on the computer. You also need software to read the code from the
rig through the line in on the computer--AND, (and here is the important
point) this is how you play with the OT's and CW!!!

I mean, it is good for a laugh

If you think I use morse for anything but personal amusement, you are
gravely mistaken!

JS

Stefan Wolfe wrote:
I personally ignore computer CW...

I personally ignore any electronically assisted CW.
I don't see much difference between an electronic
keyer and a PC. Some hams had the audacity to use
electronic keys on straight key night.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

Stefan Wolfe wrote:
I personally ignore computer CW...

I personally ignore any electronically assisted CW.
I don't see much difference between an electronic
keyer and a PC.

Ignoring someone because of how their CW is generated is just as prejudiced as
ignoring someone because they didn't have to pass a code test...

AaronJ wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Stefan Wolfe wrote:
I personally ignore computer CW...

I personally ignore any electronically assisted CW.
I don't see much difference between an electronic
keyer and a PC.

Ignoring someone because of how their CW is generated is just as prejudiced as
ignoring someone because they didn't have to pass a code test...

That's the point I was trying to make.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

That's the point I was trying to make.

My apologies, I thought you were serious.