K3 Text Decoder
Locked
 
|
I'm a little disappointed in the text decoder for cw. It works fine for rtty. Anyone got any comments about this?
73, John N1JM |
|
|
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 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:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
Thanks, Fred. It had seemed to me my previous K3 did better but I could have lucked with the right settings for that. I'm generally not a cw person but thought I would try WPXCW tonight and hopefully the decode would give me a little help but for the most part it didn't. My ears were better :-).
John N1JM |
|
|
In reply to this post by k6dgw
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:[hidden email] > > 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 ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by John_N1JM
Compared to what? CW is difficult to decode, even when sent by machine. What piece of software or equipment have you used that you thought worked better than the K3? RTTY decodes better by machine because that's what it was designed for. Morse code wasn't. If you're disappointed in the K3 text decoder, the guy you probably want to complain to is long dead. Dave AB7E 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? > > 73, John N1JM > ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
Contests are one time you can use decoders for CW and have them work fine I
have done so for 4 years. In contests 95+% of all contacts are machine canned code anyway using macros and a good reader will do the job. I have several thousand Q's doing it this way and I don't even own a key. Do I have 100% copy no but the percentage is better than 85-90% acceptable for me to be able to dabble in all the CW contests. Fred/N0AZZ -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of David Gilbert Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 2:32 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 Text Decoder Compared to what? CW is difficult to decode, even when sent by machine. What piece of software or equipment have you used that you thought worked better than the K3? RTTY decodes better by machine because that's what it was designed for. Morse code wasn't. If you're disappointed in the K3 text decoder, the guy you probably want to complain to is long dead. Dave AB7E 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? > > 73, John N1JM > ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2425/5022 - Release Date: 05/25/12 ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by David Gilbert
My experience with a MFJ pocket CW decoder seems to be more accurate and
less delay than my K3. But I'll be the first to say the K3 may not be adjusted correctly. Pete W4WWQ ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Gilbert" <[hidden email]> To: <[hidden email]> Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 3:31 AM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 Text Decoder > > > Compared to what? CW is difficult to decode, even when sent by > machine. What piece of software or equipment have you used that you > thought worked better than the K3? > > RTTY decodes better by machine because that's what it was designed for. > Morse code wasn't. If you're disappointed in the K3 text decoder, the > guy you probably want to complain to is long dead. > > Dave AB7E > > > > 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? >> >> 73, John N1JM >> > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by John_N1JM
This could be related to the reported problem with the CWT function
previously reported and under investigation. Firmware 4.48 is OK, firmware 4.51 is not. Regards, Mike VP8NO On 26/05/2012 01:44, John_N1JM wrote: > Thanks, Fred. It had seemed to me my previous K3 did better but I could have > lucked with the right settings for that. I'm generally not a cw person but > thought I would try WPXCW tonight and hopefully the decode would give me a > little help but for the most part it didn't. My ears were better :-). > > John N1JM ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
I concur with Mike's evaluation. 4.48 is much more robust than 4.51 as far as CW Decode is concerned.
Some things you may want to try to improve the S/N ratio and thus make the decoder more effective. 1)Turn the AGC off and reduce the RF Gain (Be careful here and drop the AF Gain or you might get a "crash" in the audio. I have AF LIM set to 26 to protect my audio amp.) 2)Narrow the bandwidth. I often use my 400Hz roofing filter and then use the width control all the way down to 100Hz. Using these methods I was able to copy stations that were not discernible on the P3. It is a trick from the old days before product detectors etc. but I find it still works. 73s Jim, W4ATK On May 26, 2012, at 7:07 AM, Mike Harris wrote: > This could be related to the reported problem with the CWT function > previously reported and under investigation. Firmware 4.48 is OK, > firmware 4.51 is not. > > Regards, > > Mike VP8NO > > On 26/05/2012 01:44, John_N1JM wrote: >> Thanks, Fred. It had seemed to me my previous K3 did better but I could have >> lucked with the right settings for that. I'm generally not a cw person but >> thought I would try WPXCW tonight and hopefully the decode would give me a >> little help but for the most part it didn't. My ears were better :-). >> >> John N1JM > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
Just for clarification, I don't use the internal CW or RTTY decode
functions. I just use CWT for accurate CW netting. Following that it is easy to make the often useful TX offset when calling in a simplex pile. CWT is a function I use all the time and that is why its degraded performance in 4.51 was immediately noticeable. Regards, Mike VP8NO On 26/05/2012 09:24, W4ATK wrote: > I concur with Mike's evaluation. 4.48 is much more robust than 4.51 as far as CW Decode is concerned. > > Some things you may want to try to improve the S/N ratio and thus make the decoder more effective. > > 1)Turn the AGC off and reduce the RF Gain (Be careful here and drop the AF Gain or you might get a "crash" in the audio. I have AF LIM set to 26 to protect my audio amp.) > 2)Narrow the bandwidth. I often use my 400Hz roofing filter and then use the width control all the way down to 100Hz. > > Using these methods I was able to copy stations that were not discernible on the P3. It is a trick from the old days before product detectors etc. but I find it still works. > > 73s Jim, W4ATK > On May 26, 2012, at 7:07 AM, Mike Harris wrote: > >> This could be related to the reported problem with the CWT function >> previously reported and under investigation. Firmware 4.48 is OK, >> firmware 4.51 is not. >> >> Regards, >> >> Mike VP8NO >> >> On 26/05/2012 01:44, John_N1JM wrote: >>> Thanks, Fred. It had seemed to me my previous K3 did better but I could have >>> lucked with the right settings for that. I'm generally not a cw person but >>> thought I would try WPXCW tonight and hopefully the decode would give me a >>> little help but for the most part it didn't. My ears were better :-). >>> >>> John N1JM Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
«
Return to [K3]
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |