----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Hachadorian" <k6ll@juno.com>
To: <writelog@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 4:19 AM
Subject: [WriteLog] RITTY with Writelog
> I noticed the comments below by W7TI on the 3830 Reflector,
> and thought I would cross them over to Writelog for discussion.
>
> I used MMTTY in WL during the contest (K7ABC), and noticed
> a similar delay in recognizing calls in a situation where copy was
> difficult. I thought it was due to Writelog searching the
> database and log files to match up calls on my relatively
> slow computer. There were also some instances where a
> clearly recognizable callsign, preceded by a DE, were not
> highlighted, or took a couple of seconds to highlight.
>
> Anybody notice similar happenings, and is this normal, or do
> I need a faster computer? I also noticed some hints in the
> MMTTY help files to reduce computer loading, but didn't have
> time to try them. Do they help?
>
> I thought MMTTY was a significant improvement over WL's native
> decoder, but there were still some circumstances, backscatter
> in particular, where it just would not copy, even though the signal
> was loud. I wonder how RITTY stacks up against MMTTY?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Dave Hachadorian, K6LL
> Yuma, AZ
> K6LL@juno.com
>
>
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:19:42 -0500 (EST) w7ti@dslextreme.com writes:
> > For those who haven't used RiTTY by K6STI with WriteLog, you ought
> > to give it a
> > try. The later versions have an algorithm which looks back at the
> > previous
> > characters and attempts to make sense out of the jumble by checking
> > for shifted
> > case, missing or flipped bits, etc. Many times I saw where the call
> > was not
> > recognizable, and about a half second after the transmission
> > stopped, up popped
> > the call, correctly. I'm not a programmer and I don't know what
> > tricks Brian
> > uses to make it happen, but it works. Not 100%, but pretty close.
> > The
> > contester's friend.
> >
> > The usual disclaimers apply. I count Brian as a friend, but have no
> > financial
> > interest.
Funny you should ask.
I played with having my Kam as a decoder in a second Rttyrite window on the
same computer but one of my multi monitor screens.
I FREQUENTLY saw that the Kam would HIGHLIGHT a callsign more properly than
MMLTY.
Both with a de or without preceeding the call.
It also decoded the callsign more completely
For instance MM would show W9OL/W9 with only W9OL highlighted while the Kam
window would show the entire callsign highlighted including the /W9.
Another common instance:
MM would show W9OLMW9OL and highlight the entire thing as one call where as
the ham would show it as W9OL W9OL, two seperate calls.
I used a 'M' in my example as I saw that character a lot between two
instances of a call.
Now as the same signal was being sent to both the MMTTY and the KAM, I can
only suspect that MMTTY was being fooled by noise the KAM didn't detect.
Now I also used to perform the same test by sending the same signal into
MMTTY and RITTY. Each program running on a seperate computer using identical
sound cards and the rigs output into a Y connector feeding both computers.
both programs were running in their standalone versions and both computers
were as near as identical as I could make them.
You can't run RITTY and MMTTY off the same soundcards at the same time so I
couldn't do it on one computer.
In this comparison, RITTY would beat out MMTTY marginally on most signals
and significantly on fluttery or very weak signals.
So far my attempts at getting RITTY to work under XP have been unsuccesful.
"-((
But I'm still playing at it.
> _______________________________________________
> WriteLog mailing list
> WriteLog@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
>
>
|