CW Decoder for Mac better than FLDigi

I use CW Skimmer (on the PC) for CW decoding since it performs much better than FLDigi. This is the last piece keeping me from moving to the Mac. Is there any word on a Mac version of FLDigi or a better decoder than FLDigi running native on the Mac?

Thanks, Ron K2RAS
Flexradio 6000

 

FLDigi has a Mac version. Download it at SourceForge

https://sourceforge.net/projects/fldigi/files/fldigi/

There's a support group on here for Linux and Mac OS X users.

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/linuxham/info

Hope this helps.

 

Thanks, but as you can see, I am looking for a decoder which performs better than FLDigi. CW Skimmer on the PC does a substantially better job on CW than FLDigi.

Ron K2RAS

 

Morse Decoder from HotPaw does a pretty good job. https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/morse-decoder/id477046121?mt=12&ign-mpt=uo=4

 

For some reason I can't' get Fldigi to decode CW. I play around with it very infrequently. Mostly I use it for PSK, RTTY, and MSFK (receive only atm). Trying to expand into other modes with Fldigi.

 

Thanks! That Morse Decoder (for iOS and macOS) is my app.
Please let me know if you have any suggestions for improvements or recordings of Morse Code that it can't decode, or need any other help with using the decoder.

Ron N.
N6YWU
HotPaw Productions
http://www.hotpaw.com/rhn/hotpaw/morsecode1/

 

You might also want to try CocoaModem, http://www.w7ay.net/site/Applications/cocoaModem/

Sean.

 

I tried the overpriced hot paw. Did not work nearly as good as cocaModem. Thank you for the suggestion, Sean! 73..

 

I'm curious what is preventing you from just learning Morse? The very best "CW Decoder" is the human brain.

Millions have learned over the many years including old people and young children.

Then you can use any computer you wish for logging, surfing, QRZ, etc.

Dave
W7UUU

 

I was going to ask the same question. But I thought, there might be some other reason. There has to be something more than just moving to a Mac.

When you create a CW decoder, the first order of business is, getting rid of everything, you don't want the decoder to see. Some decoders do that better than others. If they could do that, all of the decoders would do equally well. Then, all they would have to deal with was poor CW.

I know this doesn't help the OP, but I have a setup that I put together over 20 years ago. It's written in C and requires a home brew filter as a front end, to turn the tones into zeros and ones. The software runs on a Windows 3.1 laptop. It does better than all of the software available today. I use it sometimes, when I'm just listening. But in a real QSO, I don't depend on a machine.