Know Code

[ko0m]

Re: Great sounding code

I first learned code and was licensed back in 1987 and, after the opening of the Novice voice band I became inactive as far as code was concerned. #Ten years back or so, I went thru a situation that caused me to have to relearn most of the things that we take for granted; let's just say that I could not feed myself with a fork http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Fast forward to today, Code is like re-learning a foreign language; It's kinda like waking up and only being able to understand only part of the conversation.

I copy various operators a lot better than others and it all comes down to the length of the "dahs" and the spacing between the words. #Some operators only leave a "dit" spacing between words where others leave spacing of a "Dah" (three times longer?) between them.

What even sounds friendlier to my dyslexic ear is operators' whose "dahs" (whole notes) are drawn out even a little longer (in a cw type "southern drawl") while the "dits" are quarter notes.

.

[K0RGR]

Well sent code is much easier for all of us to read. Some of these guys sound like a monkey with a hammer and a knife switch. "Dey gots no rhythm...". You can easily go to the opposite extreme, however, particularly with semi-automatic 'bug' keys that let you exaggerate the 'dahs'. When you hear somebody with very exaggerated dahs and short dits, that's what's called a "Banana Boat Swing".

Some of us just can't do it by hand. I learned on a single-lever paddle, so I mess up on iambics, despite trying to learn to really use one correctly for ages. I can send fairly well with a straight key until the cramps set it. So, I prefer a keyboard.

[KI4CIA]

Quote[/b] ]What even sounds friendlier to my dyslexic ear is operators' whose "dahs" (whole notes) are drawn out even a little longer (in a cw type "southern drawl") while the "dits" are quarter notes.


Hmmm, I'll have to try that. Was wondering how to have a southern accent on CW.

I'm only kidding, I agree that copying someone with a really exaggerated swing is not fun, and takes away from the enjoyment of the QSO. (and if anybody catches me developing a swing, please, please, PLEASE!, tell me)


Welcome back to the hobby!

73,
Melinda, KI4CIA

[ab9lz]

I kinda like the guys who use bugs and send the dits at 30wpm plus (sounds like a buzz), but hang the dah's at 20 or so. It's perfectly readable in an odd sort of way.

[WA9SVD]

Maybe there should be arequirement of two years with a straight key, and nomination by five FISTS members before you are allowed to use an electronic or mechanical keyer??? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

Hnad sent CW is difficult to master, no matter what type key tou use. (I'm still trying to master a semi-automatic bug!)
But if you can't follow a fellow's "swing," then ask them to QRS and politely mention that their spacing, timing, etc. makes their signal difficult to copy at their original speed. If a few stations will be "bold" enough to say the same, most operators will at least attempt to improve their habits.

But it seems a human trait to be able (unconsciously) to send faster than we can receive, or perceive longer gaps between characters and words than we'd like. But a good operator will expect a comment to that effect, and make it a point to improve his/her sending ability.
(Blown code is no more useful than no-code.) The truth of the matter is, that unless both operators are able to communicate properly and efficiency at a mutually agreeable and attainable speed, any "Morse capability" is about as useful as the two operators knowing Olde English and Sanskrit. It's not just "knowing" the code that matters, but the ability to use it and adjust to the speed (and swing) being used by the other station.
If one station is sending at 25 WPM and the other station is only capable of 13 WPM, few if any portions of a message will get through, and that will likely be riddled with errors. Th lower speed capable station might just as well be listening toi RTTY or Packet, for all the (reliable) intelligence conveyed.