ad: UR5CDX-1

CW Decoder for Mac better than FLDigi

Discussion in 'OS: Mac OS' started by K2RAS, Oct 23, 2016.

Tags:
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
ad: Subscribe
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
  1. K2RAS

    K2RAS Ham Member QRZ Page

    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
     
  2. K8AJS

    K8AJS XML Subscriber QRZ Page

  3. K2RAS

    K2RAS Ham Member QRZ Page

    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
     
  4. K3DCW

    K3DCW QRZ Lifetime Member #212 Life Member Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

  5. K3JRZ

    K3JRZ XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    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.
     
  6. N6YWU

    N6YWU Ham Member QRZ Page

    K3DCW likes this.
  7. G0OAN

    G0OAN Ham Member QRZ Page

  8. NZ5J

    NZ5J Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I tried the overpriced hot paw. Did not work nearly as good as cocaModem. Thank you for the suggestion, Sean! 73..
     
  9. W7UUU

    W7UUU QRZ Lifetime Member #133 Volunteer Moderator Life Member Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    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
     
    ZL1ON and AD5HR like this.
  10. K7MEM

    K7MEM Ham Member QRZ Page

    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.
     

Share This Page