Jim Reisert AD1C wrote:
>
<snip>
> Does anyone have both RITTY and MMTTY 1.63 who can make a side-by-side
> comparison?
>
> 73 - Jim AD1C
>
Sorry for the late post on this question from Jim but I JUST got
around to checking this out.
In this weekend's BARTG I was able to run a side-by-side comparison of
MMTTY 1.63 and the last RITTY I have (4.51 I believe). No, I didn't do
SO2R but fed the audio off to almost identical sound cards on two
different computers.
On weak signal RX 1.63 is as good as RITTY. There is no detectable
difference. In fact MMTTY might be a bit better. Then again it is
hard to tell the difference between the two. Both had excellent copy
on signals I could barely hear or see on the XY scope (in MMTTY).
Unfortunately I was not on to work any polar path stations so I
can't comment on flutter issues but the older 1.62 was very close
to RITTY in earlier comparisons (CQWW DX in September).
I'm a bit confused by the references to the "MMTTY engine". I thought
that the MMTTY stand alone and the module that appeared when you
used MATTE as a plug-in were one in the same.
In the former case you executed the program directly with all it's
stand alone features. In the latter case the application plug in call
MMTTY in a specific manner which executed a limited mode that used
an I/O stream to pass information back and forth the the calling
application. My understanding is that the engine and stand alone use
base program. It is the method that executes the MMTTY.EXE that
differs. Then again, I could be wrong. There is historical precedent
for this possibility.
That said, I was using the direct operation in full program mode for
this weekends test. I didn't do any TXing with MMTTY so I didn't
encounter any problems with the function keys. However, that was not
a problem we noticed at Chen's place during RU where we did use 1.63
as a plug-in to WriteLog.
73 es Aloha,
Walt
AH6OZ
|