Author Topic: Digital vs. phone, vs. CW  (Read 193 times)

Offline JohnyMac

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15370
  • Karma: +23/-0
Digital vs. phone, vs. CW
« on: March 10, 2025, 10:21:13 AM »
MrsMac and I attend a ham radio breakfast every Sunday morning. The group on Sunday ebbs and flows with sometime only 3 hams and up to 9 hams. In actuality, only about 20% of the morning talk is about amateur radio. The other talk covers many different topics, politics local & national, guns, vehicles, hunting, fishing, etc. etc. etc. Well yesterday the discussion became a lively one. In essence it was a heated discussion on what is real radio, digital, phone, or CW (Morse code for you Al Green supporters).

I pretty much kept my mouth shut as to me, all three have a purpose. Of the three, I like phone the best however, I am not willing to say phone is best.

In my book, CW is best for long distance comms while using low power. When the bands were weak as we where at the bottom of the sun cycle several years ago. Using my rusty CW skills it is not uncommon hearing transmissions from around the globe.

Digital to me is awesome when ground noise is high and similar but not as good as CW is great for long distance. When the HF propagation is poor again digital blasts through. With that written, to me it is very impersonal way to communicate. One of the best things about digital in my book is you can send a message or SITREP quickly which hinders being RF'd by the opposition.

Phone is like having a nice conversation over a adult beverage in a comfortable tavern while sitting in front of a fire in the woodstove or fire place. I love to listen to people and have the ability to interject as appropriate. Part of that interaction is listening for cues that operators put out through changes in their voice modulations. Typically, the HF propagation takes a larger role in being able to communicate - Or not. You need more power than CW or digital to communicate in most cases although I regularly only use 5-10 watts for a QSO; However, 100 watts or higher is so much better.

All three share benefits. One of those is security and the ability to send secure comms, whether they be OTP (One Time Pad) or brevity codes. Now of course that is illegal. The FFC does not allow coded messages on the air waves. Yes we know  ;)

This is your opportunity to express your opinion. What is your favorite comms mode? Do you believe that digital is not "real" amateur radio? What have I missed in my above categorization of each mode? I only ask that you play nice in this discussion.  :cheers:

 :popcorn:

Keep abreast of J6 arrestees at https://americangulag.org/ Donate if you can for their defense.

Offline Hope

  • Novice Prepper
  • **
  • Posts: 87
  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Digital vs. phone, vs. CW
« Reply #1 on: March 10, 2025, 04:26:49 PM »
My favorite comms mode is digital, specifically VarAC. Is digital radio "real radio?" I don't have an opinion, but I can share that at my ham radio club, I often hear it said that digital is not "real radio." Most club members use CW. Our latest presentation was about CW. A ham was at the 9week point of his learning journey and shared resources that he used and suggestions. I have a keyer and the desire to learn, I just need to get to it and stop being distracted by other things.

Offline JohnyMac

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15370
  • Karma: +23/-0
Re: Digital vs. phone, vs. CW
« Reply #2 on: March 10, 2025, 08:09:10 PM »
Yes D_F it is easy to get distracted with CW.  :facepalm:
Keep abreast of J6 arrestees at https://americangulag.org/ Donate if you can for their defense.

Offline Jackalope

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2541
  • Karma: +11/-0
  • Free Citizen
Re: Digital vs. phone, vs. CW
« Reply #3 on: March 10, 2025, 10:59:20 PM »
Phone is my favorite mode.  I?ll do CW occasionally.  Some of the digital modes can run unattended, I don?t consider that to be a valid demonstration of operator capability. 

Offline pkveazey

  • Hardcore Prepper
  • ******
  • Posts: 2445
  • Karma: +5/-1
Re: Digital vs. phone, vs. CW
« Reply #4 on: March 11, 2025, 07:55:18 PM »
Since I know everything about everything, I'm going to give my opinion about what is DIGITAL. CW is considered Digital because it is ON or OFF. Later, RTTY showed up and is also Digital. Then Packet showed up. Then all the myriad of other forms came along. Damn!! There must be about 20 other newer Digital modes. I'd say that all of them are genuine RADIO. I personally prefer PHONE because its more personal, up close and in your face. Now, with all that said, I don't like to say that digital that goes through the internet is radio, but if you put a gun to my head, I'd have to agree that it's radio.

Offline cooter

  • Prepper
  • ***
  • Posts: 124
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Digital vs. phone, vs. CW
« Reply #5 on: March 12, 2025, 02:49:00 PM »
I always figured if you are using radio waves to send data from one antenna to another, then it is radio. 

CW is awesome for its weak signal/long haul capability. 

Since the majority of hams use phone, you have to have it.  Also I like the convenience. 

Digital is attractive for the weak signal, short transmission capability.  It looks kind of fussy (I see lots of guys relating their woes in trying to get it to work).  But, I may get a couple of cheap tablets and try some FM digital ops.

Offline Sir John Honeybucket

  • Committed prepper
  • *****
  • Posts: 663
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Digital vs. phone, vs. CW
« Reply #6 on: March 12, 2025, 05:20:01 PM »
My love of Morse code is no secret and the weekly traffic pass sked with Cooter , receiving his ERIN report which I relay via digital is know by many.  For me, for point to point nothing beats the efficiency of Morse code.  I did many decades of backpacking / military rucking and to have a tiny transceiver with VERY low power drain on both receive and transmit was essential.  In military system design we used a criteria of SWAP ( Size Weight and Power ( consumption).  Carrying a computer was something I have done but what a pain, keeping things charged and packing of the extra weight and etc. I am not a fan.  OTOH, carrying a tiny QRP rig the size of a paperback book or less, that would run for a week on AA batteries, as an example, was GOLDEN.  We'd hike all day, the string a dipole as the sun would be setting, or a slant wire, EFHW was easy.  I've passed civilian radio messages to friends and families of 'crew' using 1.8 Watts from my tiny QRP rig from VERY remote wilderness areas.  This was done in temperature extremes of -22F to over 100F.  For me, to use a transceiver , it must be small and light enough to ADD TO THE GEAR you have stuffed into your ruck for long duration trips, often in mountain snows.  That means that smaller, lighter and efficient was absolutely necessary. The radio was not the main thing, it was in addition to the trip weight required to support the actual mission. Remember, that RECEIVE CURRENT is the big determinant. I've heard people say, ' Oh, I'll just reduce the transmit power.' and that seems to make sense, until you realize that many 'small'' transceivers are made for vehicular mobile operation, and can draw as much as 2 Amps on receive, before they transmit even a single Watt.  That rapidly drains batteries.  To compare, the MTR series of QRP ( 5 Watt CW ) transceiver draws only 15 milliAmp on receive.  That is 2000 mA compared to 15 mA.

For groups on the air, digital is King.  It is so easy to have an entire group on the air at the same time using FLdigi or JS8call, is wonderful We here at Unchained Preppers have weekly traffic/SITREP meetings on the air and routinely have participants from Florida to New York to Arkansas and Texas - perfectly normal.  It CAN be done in Morse, but the training burden and practiced skill for large group CW skeds is rare indeed.  Digital makes all these pepper nets work, because the training burden ( time required to learn ) is low and the throughput during poor conditions is still very good.  OTOH, If I were man-packing my full backpack PLUS computer, recharging system and transceiver capable of very stable SSB digital, with ACCURATE digital display, well, that can be done, but it is tough and really impractical unless you hike in , make camp and remain in a stable place to set-up a SIGNIFICANT solar recharging system.

Voice, well it has some advantages, but efficiency and ability in low noise are not them. Mainly it's a 'social' mode, and if signal to noise ratio will support it, it can be fun from the back country. Remember though that 5 Watt CW signal has roughly the same intelligence carrying capacity of a 100 Watt SSB voice signal, so you do pay for the extra fun of using voice.  I do occasionally check-in to voice nets using my tiny 3 - 5 Watt QRP rig, but it's always a tough slog for the net control station and passing formal traffic is extra difficult in voice.

A compromise might be using the ANDmsg app that is the Android phone version of FLdigi.  It has the modes used for AmRRON and ERIN nets, but it's more work than using a full laptop, tiny screen, thumb typing and more. It can be done and I do practice this from time to time as my last ditch digital kit. I have checked-in to ERIN net using the TR(u)SDX transceiver in digital and voice before as a test, to ensure that is I am down to my 'last ditch digital gear' it really does work. Using the 'back-up Xiego G-90, it all works VERY well; 20 Watts was plenty of power for CW, digital and even voice.

So, learn Morse ONCE PER LIFETIME and own that skill for life, or you can spend money and be STRONGenough to carry these kinds of computer, radio , battery and solar panels loads on your back.  Mobility drops as you have to recharge the extra equipment.  or - Learn Morse and send the messages, and even chat with friends in Morse because it's a very low burden in cash and backpacking weight.

Remember, I send 2 pieces of traffic every week to the ERIN net in digital modes, one ERIN report is mine and the second report is relayed from Cooter from roughly 650 miles away,  he transmits it to me using his tiny 5 Watt CW QRP rig and dipole and he receives my ERIN report in Morse as formal traffic.

73 de Sir John Honeybucket

Ps. When I saw "Morse" or "CW" I mean hand sent, ear copied, not machine copied. Machine copied Morse is notoriously awful.  If you have a computer, USE COMPUTER OPTIMISED MODES like CONTESTIA or MFSK.




« Last Edit: March 13, 2025, 11:18:15 AM by Sir John Honeybucket »
Prepper or Survivalist ?

A Prepper keeps survival rations for his pets.

A Survivalist  keeps pets as survival rations.

Offline Hope

  • Novice Prepper
  • **
  • Posts: 87
  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Digital vs. phone, vs. CW
« Reply #7 on: March 13, 2025, 08:49:34 AM »
Sir John Honeybucket-  I loaded ANDmsg onto my Android phone and purchased the cable to connect my HT to my phone. I played with FLmsg a bit, but since there was nobody around to communicate with, I took the app off of my phone. I think it would be a great tool for comms and I'm thrilled to find out that you are using it.

Offline JohnyMac

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15370
  • Karma: +23/-0
Re: Digital vs. phone, vs. CW
« Reply #8 on: March 13, 2025, 11:32:47 AM »
Great comments Sir John.  :thumbsUp: :thumbsUp: :cheers:

NC Scout (Brushbeater) has a great book on using an iPad or other tablet for FLDIGI vs. a lap top. The Guerrilla's Guide to the Baofeng Radio. Although the title speaks to a 2-meter radio, follow the directions and you can use any radio with a tablet instead of a laptop. I use a G90 with this configuration.

The new Xiegu G90 is the Hermes Lite 2 Plus. In essence it is half the size (LxWxH) and 1/3 the weight of the G90. Uses a 12 volt battery. I would use a 12V rechargeable battery pack.

As a matter of fact, on March 29, 2025, my MAG is sponsoring a Digital workshop and we are going to introduce the Hermes to the group. One of the members built one. If you want to attend, send me a PM and I will give you the details.
Keep abreast of J6 arrestees at https://americangulag.org/ Donate if you can for their defense.

Offline Obh

  • Prepper
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Karma: +3/-0
Re: Digital vs. phone, vs. CW
« Reply #9 on: March 13, 2025, 04:30:45 PM »
I prefer digital. Less power per QSO.

In a grid down scenario, I don't need to be at my radio for someone to contact me:

Can leave a message in winlink and I can retrieve it.

Can leave a message in my vARIM and its here. I can also ping your station to see if you have a message for me at my convenience.

Can also send on the PPN (persistent presence network) I monitor and it'll be saved in my FLmsg or FLamp.