With respect, I take exception to "quality". It's how close to machine sent CW it is that makes all the difference when trying to use a machine to decode it.
Just like computer generated voices, "machine perfect" is often not as pleasant to hear or as easy to understand by humans as human-generated voice or CW. 73, Ron AC7AC -----Original Message----- K3, KX3, KPA500-FT, KAT500-FT,P3. On 20/06/2013 7:47 AM, "Robert G Strickland" <rc...@verizon.net> wrote: > Sam... > In my *limited* experience with the K3 decoder, I have found that the > quality of the sent cw is a big factor in effective decoding. For > example, leaving all radio settings constant, one signal will decode > perfectly, while another of the same strength and general speed will be gibberish. > Another test is to copy W1AW code practice; decodes perfectly every > time here. Of course, that is machine sent code. Signals sent at speed > using a bug/Vibroflex seem to give the decoder a fit. > ...robert > ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
