Windows 8 software for cw

Status
Not open for further replies.

wbswetnam

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
1,799
Location
DMR-istan
Does anyone know of a program for Windows 8 which will reliably copy cw? I have tried using fldigi but it mostly shows nonsense on the screen even though the code sounds strong and crystal clear. Yes, I admit, I am one of those *%#*! no-code generals.
 

ka3jjz

Wiki Admin Emeritus
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Messages
25,362
Location
Bowie, Md.
Software reading CW is very hard to do well. Different keying styles, speeds and even sometimes a noise burst will fool the reader.

Learn to read CW by ear - that's going to be more reliable than any software (short of getting something really expensive like Krypto500 - and I doubt that even that would read every style of sending reliably)


Mike
 

K7MEM

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
422
Location
Swartz Creek, Michigan
Does anyone know of a program for Windows 8 which will reliably copy cw? I have tried using fldigi but it mostly shows nonsense on the screen even though the code sounds strong and crystal clear. Yes, I admit, I am one of those *%#*! no-code generals.

Actually, you don't really know if everything on the screen is nonsense. Since the signal is clear and strong you are probably seeing some correct characters that are interspersed with incorrect/extra characters. The problem is figuring out which ones are the good and which ones are not.

There are many different types of CW decoders. None of them are perfect, but some are a little better than others. There is CWLab, DXLab, EchoCW, HRD (DM780), and Fldigi, but I can't say whether there are Windows 8 versions available. Of all of them, I have found that HRD (DM780) does the best job of decoding. But, as KA3JJZ said, none of them are perfect.

The best one that I have used, I built over 20 years ago. The hardware interface had a set of filters that helped isolate the signal and then turn it into zeros and ones. A LED let me know when it was tuned in properly. The zeros and ones were then sent to a serial port. A program on the PC did the job of decoding. It was pretty fast and adapted very well to speed changes. I still use it today. The software is written in C and runs on a small "Sub Note" laptop that is running Windows 3.1. Can you say "386"?

There are hams that use computers for high speed CW QSOs. These are mostly prearranged QSOs with both parties using computers. You can easily spot them because their CW decodes perfectly, when conditions are good. However, if you don't know Morse Code and you are not familiar with the normal procedures of a CW contact, I don't recommend trying to make a CW contact. There are a lot of abbreviations and Q codes used and it may be difficult to make sense of them on the screen.

If you are trying out different pieces of software, a good source of machine sent Morse Code would be the code sessions from the ARRL. You can get their schedule from their web site. They usually start at 5 WPM and increase their speed by increment of 5 WPM (I think). They usually send text directly from QST magazines. It's a good way of testing decoders.

Bottom line, if you want to work CW, learn Morse Code. It's not as difficult as some say, but harder than others say. You will only know if you try. It shouldn't take much time to get good enough to get on the air. You might want to check out the SKCC or FISTS. Both organizations are dedicated to CW and have slow speed areas for beginners. SKCC likes you to use straight keys or bugs, but I just use what I like. I gave up straight keys a long time ago and mostly use an old bug (1916 Blue Racer) connected to a keyer.
 

wbswetnam

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
1,799
Location
DMR-istan
Bottom line, if you want to work CW, learn Morse Code. It's not as difficult as some say, but harder than others say. You will only know if you try. It shouldn't take much time to get good enough to get on the air. You might want to check out the SKCC or FISTS. Both organizations are dedicated to CW and have slow speed areas for beginners. SKCC likes you to use straight keys or bugs, but I just use what I like. I gave up straight keys a long time ago and mostly use an old bug (1916 Blue Racer) connected to a keyer.

Maybe I will give the Fldigi another try... if the code is very clear and little QRN then it seems to be able to decode enough that I can easily understand the 'gist' of the QSO.

As far as learning code, well, I guess it's just not a priority for me. I totally respect and admire other operators' ability to use code, and it certainly has its advantages and its place in the hobby. But I guess I'm looking for a software "cheat" so I can dabble in it, like I dabble in a lot of aspects of the hobby. I have also tried out satellite communications, I've tried making my own antennas, I've tried PSK31, and I was thinking of giving the code a try but with a computer and software. If I don't get decent results then I'll move on to some other aspect of the hobby.

This is what I really love about amateur radio... there are so many things to experiment with and get involved with! What's next?.... EME maybe!
 

K7MEM

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
422
Location
Swartz Creek, Michigan
Maybe I will give the Fldigi another try... if the code is very clear and little QRN then it seems to be able to decode enough that I can easily understand the 'gist' of the QSO.

Yes, in the absence of interference, Fldigi should do pretty good. Most of them do. But it may take some time to get use to the abbreviations used. Between abbreviations and inconsistent character/word spacing it can be a real challenge figuring out what someone is sending. I was listening to some CW yesterday on 40 Meters. Most were slow and nicely sent. But one operator was obviously using a straight key, because his dots and dashes were the same length. That's what happens when you don't listen to your own sending. I listened to him for a while, but I could not extract his call. At least he was trying. I only hope that someone tells him why he is not getting answers to his CQ.

As far as learning code, well, I guess it's just not a priority for me. I totally respect and admire other operators' ability to use code, and it certainly has its advantages and its place in the hobby. But I guess I'm looking for a software "cheat" so I can dabble in it, like I dabble in a lot of aspects of the hobby. I have also tried out satellite communications, I've tried making my own antennas, I've tried PSK31, and I was thinking of giving the code a try but with a computer and software. If I don't get decent results then I'll move on to some other aspect of the hobby.

It's difficult to give code any priority, especially since it is no longer required. But even when it was, many hams learned it just to get by the tests, and never used it again. It was their choice then and it's your choice now.

It's good to dabble in all the different aspects of the hobby, but I'm not convinced that CW is a good one. If your going to rely completely on a computer for CW communication, then this really isn't any different than PSK31. For anything you want to send you have the keyboard or ready made macros. It's just that with CW it's little more error prone. I'm not even sure you could consider it "dabbling".

Where your going to run into problems is when the other operator asks you a simple question. But during that question you get QSB or QRM or QRN or any of the other things that cause poor copy and you have no idea what he is saying. When you don't answer the question your CW skill level will be obvious. When that happens to me, I just send a quick "tnx fer qso 73 cul" and move on.

This is what I really love about amateur radio... there are so many things to experiment with and get involved with! What's next?.... EME maybe!

Anything that is allowed on the bands is game. Maybe get one of the older free versions of Ham Radio Deluxe (they are still available with a google search) and try some Slow Scan TV. You can send your smiling face out to the world.

Martin - K7MEM
 

AK9R

Lead Wiki Manager and almost an Awesome Moderator
Super Moderator
Joined
Jul 18, 2004
Messages
9,293
Location
Central Indiana
Maybe I will give the Fldigi another try... if the code is very clear and little QRN then it seems to be able to decode enough that I can easily understand the 'gist' of the QSO.
As was previously mentioned, try the ARRL Code Practice and Bulletin transmissions as a means of fine tuning fldigi to receive CW. The CW coming from W1AW is machine-generated and should be darn near perfect except for QRM.

You can find the W1AW schedule here:

W1AW Operating Schedule
 

Fizz306

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 21, 2004
Messages
205
Location
Long Valley, NJ
Check out CWSkimmer. I've had good success listening to many different conversations with this handy little piece of software. Very user intuitive, and looks great too.

Not too sure about Win8 compatability, but runs well on my Win7 box.

DX Atlas: Amateur Radio software
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top