Mail Archive Search: <+from:aflowers@frontiernet.net>

Results:

References: [ +from:aflowers@frontiernet.net: 33 ]

Total 33 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] PSK31 is faster (Was FD RTTY Question) (score: 1): Author: aflowers@frontiernet.net; Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:02:57 +0000 (UTC); Apologies for the provocative title, but the lamenting of PSK31's perceived slowness during the FD festivities prompted me to crunch some actual numbers. The question I thought to investigate was "ho; /archives//html/RTTY/2012-06/msg00104.html (10,859 bytes)
2. Re: [RTTY] PSK31 is faster (Was FD RTTY Question) (score: 1): Author: aflowers@frontiernet.net; Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 04:37:42 +0000 (UTC); Interesting discussion, though I don't exactly know why this veered off into what modes are "better" contesting and how to hack MMTTY for 7 bit ASCII. This thread was about PSK31 being less fun than; /archives//html/RTTY/2012-06/msg00141.html (12,954 bytes)
3. Re: [RTTY] PSK31 is faster (Was FD RTTY Question) (score: 1): Author: aflowers@frontiernet.net; Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:47:47 +0000 (UTC); DX QSOs where PSK falls flat, 45* baud 170 Hz shift RTTY seems to be the contester's favorite, at least so far. Bill, I'm not arguing that PSK31 has more "contest utility" than RTTY. As for all-purp; /archives//html/RTTY/2012-06/msg00144.html (9,932 bytes)
4. Re: [RTTY] PSK31 is faster (Was FD RTTY Question) (score: 1): Author: aflowers@frontiernet.net; Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 01:06:10 +0000 (UTC); As an experiment, "someone" just downloaded the source off of AE4JY's site, hacked the preamble and postamble arrays to two bytes each (they're set to be the same length because this someone was lazy; /archives//html/RTTY/2012-06/msg00153.html (10,605 bytes)
5. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Now trashy signals (score: 1): Author: "aflowers@frontiernet.net" <aflowers@frontiernet.net>; Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 18:40:43 -0800 (PST); For those who haven't seen what Dave is talking about, I've isolated the spectra of several RTTY signals from this past weekend that are numbered for comparison here: http://www.frontiernet.net/; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-01/msg00134.html (8,047 bytes)
6. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Now trashy signals (score: 1): Author: "aflowers@frontiernet.net" <aflowers@frontiernet.net>; Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 07:28:23 -0800 (PST); Al, I respectfully disagree in small detail (and please forgive me if I misunderstood). I think everyone owns equal responsibility for his or her signal *regardless of the process creating it*. W; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-01/msg00155.html (10,001 bytes)
7. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Now trashy signals (score: 1): Author: "aflowers@frontiernet.net" <aflowers@frontiernet.net>; Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 09:03:08 -0800 (PST); Fair enough, Al! I've had my coffee now... Here's a very simple way that might get at the crux of the issue. Let's say that signal number #3 was your signal (yes, this was recorded off the air t; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-01/msg00157.html (13,927 bytes)
8. [RTTY] RTTY spectrum analysis article (score: 1): Author: "aflowers@frontiernet.net" <aflowers@frontiernet.net>; Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 18:39:27 -0800 (PST); Fellow RTTY operators, I had some interesting private emails about the spectra I posted here, especially about the now infamous "Signal 3". If you haven't seen Signal 3, you might want to look a; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-01/msg00170.html (9,174 bytes)
9. Re: [RTTY] RTTY spectrum analysis article (score: 1): Author: "aflowers@frontiernet.net" <aflowers@frontiernet.net>; Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 20:33:13 -0800 (PST); Coincidentally, the audio files in the article are almost perfectly representative of an S2 signal and a S9+20 signal 400 Hz away (which would be 62db with 6db per S unit). I'm measuring the gap betw; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-01/msg00196.html (11,059 bytes)
10. Re: [RTTY] RTTY spectrum analysis article (score: 1): Author: "aflowers@frontiernet.net" <aflowers@frontiernet.net>; Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:02:29 -0800 (PST); Salvo brings up an interesting point when it comes to generating FSK. (Incidentally, one of the "narrow" examples on the webpage happens to be a Flex 5000 and with an Alpha 8410 running about 1000; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-01/msg00213.html (15,694 bytes)
11. [RTTY] Getting rid of clicks--what's the risk? (score: 1): Author: "aflowers@frontiernet.net" <aflowers@frontiernet.net>; Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:03:16 -0800 (PST); "Someone transmitted a bad signal using AFSK. Therefore you shouldn't do it." Your decision whether or not to use waveshaped AFSK today shouldn't be based on the fact that its technically possib; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-01/msg00244.html (12,142 bytes)
12. Re: [RTTY] Getting rid of clicks--what's the risk? (score: 1): Author: "aflowers@frontiernet.net" <aflowers@frontiernet.net>; Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:16:35 -0800 (PST); Reading that back makes it look like it might have been directed at you, personally. I didn't mean it that way, please forgive me if that is how it came across. I want to make it clear that I'm no; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-01/msg00248.html (11,978 bytes)
13. [RTTY] K3 reduced-bandwidth RTTY analysis (score: 1): Author: "aflowers@frontiernet.net" <aflowers@frontiernet.net>; Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 18:16:10 -0700 (PDT); Hello again, I have finally gotten around to finishing up a short analysis of the reduced-bandwidth FSK keying in the K3. As many of you are aware, Elecraft made some beta firmware available sever; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-03/msg00154.html (8,876 bytes)
14. Re: [RTTY] K3 reduced-bandwidth RTTY analysis (score: 1): Author: "aflowers@frontiernet.net" <aflowers@frontiernet.net>; Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:08:30 -0700 (PDT); Just to clear up any confusion, the *original* article that looks at the effect of waveshaping shows the K3 AFSK TX filter in only one of the figures (Figure 15 to be exact). All the others do not h; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-03/msg00165.html (12,169 bytes)
15. Re: [RTTY] A Different View--K3 Reduced-bandwidth RTTY Analysis (score: 1): Author: "aflowers@frontiernet.net" <aflowers@frontiernet.net>; Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 06:19:22 -0700 (PDT); Hank, As you are aware the only reason you can see that transition in the RF envelope is because your tones are unequal by about 1 dB, assuming the vertical scale is linear on your scope pict; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-03/msg00200.html (8,989 bytes)
16. [RTTY] Anyone using only 1 stop bit? (score: 1): Author: "aflowers@frontiernet.net" <aflowers@frontiernet.net>; Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 06:06:25 -0700 (PDT); Out of curiosity, is anyone transmitting only one stop bit in RTTY (i.e., "5-N-1"). EXTFSK from MMTTY appears to be fixed at 1.5 stop bits (I think), and many of the modems are transmitting either; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-05/msg00017.html (7,528 bytes)
17. Re: [RTTY] 300hz or 500hz IF filter? (score: 1): Author: "aflowers@frontiernet.net" <aflowers@frontiernet.net>; Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:37:48 -0700 (PDT); Since David's original question regards choosing between two crystal IF filters in a superhet, I would be inclined to rely on anyone who has compared two filters you are interested in with your rad; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-08/msg00101.html (13,354 bytes)
18. [RTTY] A thought on FSK timing (score: 1): Author: "aflowers@frontiernet.net" <aflowers@frontiernet.net>; Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 17:54:07 -0700 (PDT); Peter's question about 75-baud brought to mind something I've been pondering for a while....I'm not convinced that the "MMTTY + UART" is always optimal from a timing perspective, though it probably; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-09/msg00080.html (7,939 bytes)
19. [RTTY] TinyFSK modem for 45 and 75 baud (score: 1): Author: "aflowers@frontiernet.net" <aflowers@frontiernet.net>; Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:10:32 -0700 (PDT); For those of you looking for a relatively simple and inexpensive method of doing 45 and 75 baud RTTY using logical keying ("FSK") you can have a look at a TX-only modem that I built that will accom; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-10/msg00151.html (7,557 bytes)
20. Re: [RTTY] TinyFSK modem for 45 and 75 baud (score: 1): Author: "aflowers@frontiernet.net" <aflowers@frontiernet.net>; Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 20:15:47 -0700 (PDT); Jim, Be careful when counting, as there are empty holes on the corners with no pins in them--I think that might be the source of the numbering issue, no matter which one of us didn't count right.; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-10/msg00159.html (9,048 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]