Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+Information\s+Please\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+Information\s+Please\s*$/: 26 ]

Total 26 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] Information please (score: 1): Author: "Richard White" <whiter26@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 20:42:29 -0500; I am working RTTY about 90% of the time now as I can't copy CW as I once did. With propagation as bad as it is I am considering buying an amp. Have not had one for over 15 years. On RTTY I can copy m; /archives//html/RTTY/2017-05/msg00069.html (6,883 bytes)
2. Re: [RTTY] Information please (score: 1): Author: "John Barber" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 09:20:25 +0100; You could think about using the other data modes. With low power and poor propagation, PSK can work a lot better than RTTY. The ultimate move across to the dark side is JT65. I started using JT65 abo; /archives//html/RTTY/2017-05/msg00070.html (8,250 bytes)
3. Re: [RTTY] Information please (score: 1): Author: Kok Chen <rtty@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 03:02:31 -0700; Perhaps you mean PSK31 is better than RTTY when conditions are _good_? PSK31 fails pretty badly when there is multipath, for example. PSK31 also cannot take advantage that RTTY can under selective f; /archives//html/RTTY/2017-05/msg00071.html (11,363 bytes)
4. Re: [RTTY] Information please (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 14:10:55 +0000; -- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: Even better than JT65 is JT9. A fraction of the bandwidth and according to the author, about 2 dB better with weak signals. The protocol is the same. Giv; /archives//html/RTTY/2017-05/msg00072.html (8,156 bytes)
5. Re: [RTTY] Information please (score: 1): Author: Don AA5AU <aa5au@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 14:37:06 +0000 (UTC); JT65 and JT9 and excellent modes. I have over 144 entities worked on JT65 alone and have worked all states on 10-80 meters (need only DE & RI on 160 and AK, HI & ME on 6 meters. Last night I worked t; /archives//html/RTTY/2017-05/msg00073.html (9,343 bytes)
6. Re: [RTTY] Information please (score: 1): Author: "David G3YYD" <g3yyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:48:20 -0500; How well do the JT modes cope with propagation that spreads the signal spectrum? This can be over tens of Hz in the worse case. 73 David G3YYD -- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) RTTY! REPLY: Even; /archives//html/RTTY/2017-05/msg00074.html (8,340 bytes)
7. Re: [RTTY] Information please (score: 1): Author: Martin Berube <ve2nmb@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 11:15:38 -0400; Hi Richard, I am contesting in RTTY with a AL-811H. It does the job. with 15W from the rig, I get around 350W depending of the band. This site contains userful information about there amps. https://w; /archives//html/RTTY/2017-05/msg00075.html (8,730 bytes)
8. Re: [RTTY] Information please (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 12:50:39 -0400; David, The JT modes are designed with spreading in mind - their derivation was VHF/UHF EME and scatter modes where Doppler is a significant issue. My results have been much like Don's ... with nothin; /archives//html/RTTY/2017-05/msg00076.html (10,146 bytes)
9. Re: [RTTY] Information please (score: 1): Author: Sean Waite <waisean@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 17:24:36 +0000; There was a discussion on the topband list about JT9 vs JT65. Someone emailed Joe Taylor and asked him, his response was this: As you should expect, the correct answer is "it depends". Depends on con; /archives//html/RTTY/2017-05/msg00077.html (12,345 bytes)
10. Re: [RTTY] Information Please (score: 1): Author: Michael Zolno <luv.myipad3@xxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 14:31:44 -0400; Hi Dick, I normally run barefoot to a coax fed OCF dipole at 40ft, a compromise antenna. I print others but it seems no one can hear me. A few months ago a good friend gave me a broken AL-811 with 6; /archives//html/RTTY/2017-05/msg00079.html (11,369 bytes)
11. Re: [RTTY] Information please (score: 1): Author: Mark <k5xhrtty@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 14:24:33 -0500; Dick, You might try Olivia. You can enjoy a ragchew type QSO instead of the fixed format of JT65. I normally run about 25 watts to a tribander and find that works well. I use Fldigi software. 73, Mar; /archives//html/RTTY/2017-05/msg00080.html (9,099 bytes)
12. Re: [RTTY] Information please (score: 1): Author: W4GKM <w4gkm@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 08:58:19 -0500; I have never tried these modes, but I would like to, where do I start. Nick W4GKM On 5/26/2017 9:37 AM, Don AA5AU wrote: JT65 and JT9 and excellent modes. I have over 144 entities worked on JT65 alon; /archives//html/RTTY/2017-05/msg00085.html (10,347 bytes)
13. Re: [RTTY] Information please (score: 1): Author: "John Barber" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 17:15:51 +0100; If you are already set up for another data mode, using AFSK, it's simple. I started by downloading JT65-HF, set it up and watched the results. On most HF bands the radio is set to .076 dial frequency; /archives//html/RTTY/2017-05/msg00086.html (11,679 bytes)
14. Re: [RTTY] Information please (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 00:10:47 +0000; -- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: Agreed. I have all but given up the JT modes because of their slowness. They are truly amazing but I don't have the patience. For a real QSO, Olivia is p; /archives//html/RTTY/2017-05/msg00087.html (8,845 bytes)
15. Re: [RTTY] Information please (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 00:14:33 +0000; -- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: Instead of JT65-HF I would suggest WSJT-X. It does JT65, JT9 and several other modes. Also download JT-Alert. It interfaces with you log and will tell yo; /archives//html/RTTY/2017-05/msg00088.html (8,835 bytes)
16. Re: [RTTY] Information please (score: 1): Author: "Kermit $aka Ken$ via RTTY" <rtty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 22:34:36 -0400; Agreed. I have all but given up the JT modes because of their slowness. They are truly amazing but I don't have the patience. For a real QSO, Olivia is pretty impressive. Print is just about perfect; /archives//html/RTTY/2017-05/msg00089.html (9,302 bytes)
17. Re: [RTTY] Information please (score: 1): Author: "Don Hill AA5AU" <aa5au@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 23:28:00 -0500; "I have all but given up the JT modes because of their slowness." True, the JT modes are slow but that's part of the beauty of them. You can stream a ballgame, read email, eat dinner and take a nap a; /archives//html/RTTY/2017-05/msg00090.html (8,092 bytes)
18. Re: [RTTY] Information please (score: 1): Author: "Barry Murrell ZS2EZ" <zs2ez@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 12:05:38 +0200; John, you may want to try JTDX, a derivative of WSJT-X optimised exclusively for HF by UA3DJY. Unlike WSJT-X (which unless you are prepared to compile your own version is updated VERY infrequently -; /archives//html/RTTY/2017-05/msg00091.html (14,425 bytes)
19. Re: [RTTY] Information please (score: 1): Author: Ed Muns <ed@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 06:04:07 -0700; +1 for JTDX. The advantages are all on JT65 for HF, not JT9, though. _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinf; /archives//html/RTTY/2017-05/msg00092.html (14,868 bytes)
20. Re: [RTTY] Information please (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 10:19:33 -0400; The issues with JTDX are: 1) the use of "hinted decoding" which uses a list of known calls and will find them even if they are not present! 2) overly aggressive decoding which produces a very high le; /archives//html/RTTY/2017-05/msg00093.html (15,434 bytes)

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