The practice of referring to "problems" as "issues" began during the
early minicomputer days, when disk drives were both small and
expensive. The cumulative saving of two bytes per instance was
significant, given the rate of occurence.
Note that disk drive manufacturers continued to use "proble
Hello Jose, Joe and Rick,
Thanks for all information. I'm not sure that the way to decode with a
simple threshold and simple way to determine speed can give good results...
A ham told me that it compares an external decoder with a modern decoder
(no publicity), regarding the S/N level. He t
--- Patrick Lindecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Martin,
>
> 8 bit or 16 bits is not the problem, only the
> algorihm used or the hardware
> processing makes the difference. One of the problem
> is the automatic
> determination of the speed. Did the old Pakrat
> determines the CW speed
Rick, KV9U
-Original Message-From:
digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On
Behalf Of Joe IveySent: Monday, October 10, 2005
17:02To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re:
[digitalradio] Re: CW decoding comparison (MPSK, Mixw,
Hamsco
gitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Joe
IveySent: Monday, October 10, 2005 17:02To:
digitalradio@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW
decoding comparison (MPSK, Mixw, Hamscope)
Patrick,
I have used the Pakrat software and you can have
the
Lindecker
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:02
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW
decoding comparison (MPSK, Mixw, Hamscope)
Hello Martin,8 bit or 16 bits is not the problem,
only the algorihm used or the hardware processing makes the
it is better.
73
Patrick
- Original Message -
From: "martinbradford2001" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 4:05 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: CW decoding comparison (MPSK, Mixw, Hamscope)
>I have an old PakRatt which seems to do a far better jo
martinbradford2001 wrote:
>I have an old PakRatt which seems to do a far better job than any
>modern CW decoder I have tried - its a bit picky about its input
>level but once you have that set that correctly it seems to cope with
>some pretty poor morse... That is software which must be close t
I have an old PakRatt which seems to do a far better job than any
modern CW decoder I have tried - its a bit picky about its input
level but once you have that set that correctly it seems to cope with
some pretty poor morse... That is software which must be close to
twenty years old and running
