The trouble with Morse Code is...

[foggycoder]

I'm a very positive person. Negativity has it's uses but, generally, it's overdone. However, I thought I'd start this thread to enable operators to get stuff off their chests. Here is my starter:

SPEED DISPARITY & CRITICAL MASS

The purpose of morse code is to communicate. Morse code can be sent and received over a broad range of speeds. At the bottom end (<10 wpm), it barely sounds like morse code (although communication between human operators is, theoretically, possible). At the top end (>35 wpm), it is too fast for most operators and computers are used to send and receive it. Let us assume, then, that most human-to-human morse code communications happen in the range 10 - 35 wpm.

Unfortunately morse code sent at 30 wpm by one operator cannot be decoded by another operator who's maximum speed is 12 wpm. And it can be very difficult for fast operators to slow down (they can't decode morse at only 12 wpm - it sounds all wrong to them). Of course, computer morse decoders are used by slower operators to address this speed disparity, but that is not the same as decoding in your head - it takes away half (the receiving half) of the pleasure. So, for morse communications to be pleasurable to both parties, their speed of sending and copying must be reasonably closely matched. This significantly reduces the number of potential operator/operator pairs.

All the old guys tell me that there's not as much morse code about as there once was. That doesn't surprise me given the considerable time and effort to learn it, and these days there are many far-easier means of communication. There's also a proliferation of morse platforms, so those fewer operators are spread more-thinly.

My contention (and do feel free to disagree with me) is that
the total number of morse operators has dropped below the critical mass needed to ensure a reasonable chance of an operator/operator speed match.
In other words, it's difficult to find someone to talk to!

 

[Ham4CW]

Speeds down to as low as 5wpm or so still sound fine IF the operator receiving the code has practiced at that speed. It's only when you get down to 4wpm or slower that things get silly, and it would be better watching the code on a sonogram (waterfall display) rather than trying to read it in your head.

Obviously at QRSS speeds using three second dots or ten second dots etc. you really would have to rely on some kind of visual display.

At very slow speeds (say 5wpm), head reading is difficult not because the individual characters cannot be decoded, but it is a problem to hold all of the letters/numbers in your mind long enough to get the full word/message etc. Writing or typing the decoded code solves this, although some folks can still copy in their heads happily even then. No two op's are made the same!

While it is true that someone who can only copy code at say 12wpm would  struggle listening to an operator at 35wpm, the reverse should not be true. The only reason a 35wpm op' "cannot" read slower code is just lack of practice.

On a good day with good (perfect) code from a Morse tutor I may manage up to nearly 40wpm on random letters and numbers. But, I also practice reading at 30wpm, 25wpm, 10wpm etc, the greater the range of speeds you can copy the better. But I do find that when listening to hand sent Morse the speeds will drop some.

The same is true for sending. Some operators claim they "cannot" send at say 10wpm when they normally use 35wpm. This again is lack of practice (unless they have a bug key that cannot drop to those speeds!)

73, Mark...

 

[foggycoder]

Going a bit off-topic here. But, hey, that's what makes discussions interesting.

HEAD COPYING

I recognise what you say about Head Copying - it's heavily reliant on a type of very short-term memory.

My current best speed is 13 wpm (with about 75% accuracy). The shorter words are okay. But trying to store all the letters of a longer word and then assemble them into something meaningful is a challenge because the first letters keep disappearing. If I could only decode individual characters at a faster speed, I could hold all the letters together in my mind long enough to make sense of them before they start evaporating.

Actually, I can Head Copy at faster speeds - up to 18 wpm - with only a small reduction in accuracy. I think this is because the greater number of characters that can be grouped before "evaporation" occurs partially off-sets the reduced decoding of individual characters with increasing speed.

Sometimes, being able to guess the word part way through is a great help. But if I guess incorrectly, it completely throws me because my mind has switched into "confirmation mode" (from "decode mode") and has dropped all the characters.

Strangely enough, I can do better with human-sent morse because, while the character speed can be high, the word speed is generally low (with operators that go at my speed, anyway) because they often pause slightly between words to figure out how to spell the next word. Machine-sent morse, on the other hand, is remorseless (forgive the internal pun).

I look forward to the day when the words just pop into my head!

 

[Ham4CW]

That's the good thing about 'rubber stamp' QSOs, they might seem boring but you can guess almost 95% of what will be sent. Then just write down the important stuff, op's name, QTH etc.

I seem to recall reading that the average number of letters that can be 'carried' in the mind  at any one time is five. Mind you, after years of regular practice the limit will have no end!

I find I can do better when a rig is on in the background and I'm NOT concentrating on the conversation. As soon as I take an interest all of the mental filters kick in and it slows down the decode process, or at least seems to make it much harder work.

73, Mark...

 

[GM0WEZ]

I can Head Copy at faster speeds - up to 18 wpm - with only a small reduction in accuracy.

Likewise I copy 'well enough' for a qso at 20 wpm - I might miss the odd character or even a word but still understand the general impression of what's been sent, even when having discussions on morse keys  etc.
And rubber stamp qso copy at 25 wpm is also ok for me, especially as name and qth are typically repeated or sent slower.
My last RufzXP score was 143 cpm, which is apparently just shy of 29wpm.

But when I went to the Glasgow rally and did the RSGB proficiency certificate test, you are only allowed 3 or 4 errors. Couldn't do that at 20wpm, though I wasn't much over. Couldn't do it at 15wpm either!!! I had to go down to 12wpm, by which time I had 100% copy and it seemed terribly slow.

Need to spend more time copying I guess.

 

[foggycoder]

Yes, it's interesting, that balance between speed and accuracy.

For official tests, organisations seem to concentrate on accuracy. And I understand why. To focus on accuracy for each character, they send random groups so that there's not context information to assist.

But in the real world, context plays an important part (I'm not talking about the old military guys who were copying encrypted morse). Throw in frequent repeats and the natural redundancy within plain text, and accuracy doesn't need to be anywhere near 100% for communication to take place. So operators, despite the saying "Accuracy Always Trumps Speed", do trade some accuracy for speed.

The reason, I suspect, is that morse is a terribly slow means of communication (for most amateurs) and we naturally want to get our message across as quickly as possible.
Plus it's easier to send faster than one can copy.
Plus other operators always seem to go faster than you!

 

[gm5bkc]

Along with speed compatibility, there are the stations calling CQ DX.  How does that work for you folks in GB?

If I hear a W9 station calling CQ DX, I know he doesn't want me, in Colorado, to answer him. 

If a station in Europe does it, who is he expecting to answer??  Anyone else in a different country, or farther than EU ?

Glenn AE0Q

 

[Ham4CW]

Along with speed compatibility, there are the stations calling CQ DX.  How does that work for you folks in GB?

If I hear a W9 station calling CQ DX, I know he doesn't want me, in Colorado, to answer him. 

If a station in Europe does it, who is he expecting to answer??  Anyone else in a different country, or farther than EU ?

Glenn AE0Q

Hey Glen!

The ones I've listened to in the DX portions of the HF bands, in Europe, seem to get really angry if anyone from Europe answers them. It might be better if they stated where the DX is they're after. Some do actually do that by calling for the prefixes of the countries they require, but many just call "DX".

I find it silly when I hear a station calling for hours on end, just to have a ten second QSO :-*

Having said that, I am more interested in the technical side of the hobby than collecting bits of cardboard, or awards, or anything else like that. If you achieve such things as a by-product of having some good QSO's with stations then fine, but to just set out for the awards alone doesn't interest me at all.

I'm the same with competitions, if I hear one in progress I just reach for the off button ^-^

Give me a broken radio and a soldering iron any day over "CQ TEST CQ TEST CQ TEST" )

I know that a lot of op's do enjoy them though... Each to their own bd

73, Mark...