RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] Best program

To: "'Rick Ruhl'" <ricker@cssincorp.com>, <rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Best program
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Reply-to: lists@subich.com
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:06:16 -0500
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>

> Joe already said he could do this but it would loose money.  

No, I said it would not be worthwhile for the programmers at 
microHAM.

> See, putting into an external DSP processor would mean that 
> you access the hardware directly and it would be better that 
> RITTY.  

You don't need to do it with external hardware.  The ADC in 
any quality soundcard will provide 24 bit resolution and 
that's plenty good enough for the audio output of modern 
amateur transceivers with a little bit of AGC.  

Chen has done the job in OS-X (Cocoa framework on BSD UNIX). 
He works in a 2.4KHz bandwidth ... doesn't even require 
a good 500 Hz filter.  I haven't looked at or tested the 
demodulator (no interest in setting up channel simulators) 
in FLdigi but that's another good cross platform product 
with essentially open source routines.  

> So if anyone has a couple hundred thousand dollars or more 
> that wants to fund the development for Joe and I (or Dave C 
> or Dave B), then we'd be more than happy to do it.

Here's the issue ... a fulltime development effort would 
certainly be in this range if done commercially.  How many 
copies of the software should need to be sold in a year to 
make that viable and at what cost?  Would such a product 
sell 10,000 copies a year for three or four years at $25 
a copy?  Or ... would it be pirated, reverse engineered 
and copied?  Would such a program provide sufficiently 
better performance than MMTTY, MixW, TrueTTY, FLdigi or 
MultiPSK to justify its purchase?  

73, 

   ... Joe, W4TV 
 





> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtty-bounces@contesting.com 
> [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Rick Ruhl
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 9:09 PM
> To: rtty@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Best program
> 
> 
> Brian is bitter because the ham that cracked his program told 
> him as long as he continued to create versions of it, that he 
> would crack it since he thought all software should be free 
> (Sound familiar).  When someone steals from you, you remain 
> bitter.  Microsoft did that to me with some contracts we had, 
> and I remain bitter about that to this day.  One place you 
> don't steal from anyone is their wallet or one becomes bitter.
> 
> I bet if you offered him some major bucks to buy the source code, he'd
> respond to that.   That would make him feel like someone 
> valued his work. I
> did that with Dick Litchel and Pakratt, bought the source 
> from him.   Stop
> trying to get coders to give away their work, it's all we 
> have that we can make money with.
> 
> Now:
> 
> To do this under Windows doing it the way Brian did, we'd 
> have to access the hardware directly, like he did under DOS. 
> This can be done under Windows, but we'd need to do a Ring 0 
> device driver and put much of the code in there.  It would 
> have to be a replacement for your current drive that comes 
> with your soundcard, because I think chaining it to the stock 
> drive would cause more latency.  This would mean we'd have to 
> get hardware information for every soundcard and write a 
> driver for every soundcard.  Doesn't sound fun or easy, does it?
> 
> Brian wrote directly to the soundcards hardware without the 
> use of a driver. That's the DOS model.  The Windows model 
> requires that drivers interact with the Kernel. 
> 
> A better way to do this is to put the code into a TRUE usb 
> device and talk to the USB driver directly. Joe already said 
> he could do this but it would loose money.  See, putting into 
> an external DSP processor would mean that you access the 
> hardware directly and it would be better that RITTY.  
> 
> So if anyone has a couple hundred thousand dollars or more 
> that wants to fund the development for Joe and I (or Dave C 
> or Dave B), then we'd be more than happy to do it.
> 
> But like Joe said, some other hardware company would pirate 
> it and steal the code and poof, there goes the market.
> 
> Rick - W4PC
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtty-bounces@contesting.com 
> [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Charles Morrison
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:52 PM
> To: rtty@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Best program
> 
> > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:59:10 -0500
> > From: "Dave AA6YQ" <aa6yq@ambersoft.com>
> > Subject: Re: [RTTY] Best program
> > To: <rtty@contesting.com>
> > Message-ID: <8DA2E2677BEB499490DBA841B7829213@dxlab>
> > Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="windows-1250"
> > 
> > >>>AA6YQ comments below
> > 
> > >>>I have spoken at length with Brian, and found him completely 
> > >>>unwilling.
> > The piracy of RITTY and the negative reaction to his attempts to 
> > eliminate that piracy have not left Brian in a charitable mood with 
> > respect to
> amateur
> > radio. He was also skeptical that RITTY could be made to work 
> > correctly under the Windows scheduler.
> > 
> 
> I agree with Neal's next posting in that I've been 
> sufficiently satisfied with MMTTY's performance to continue 
> to use it.  I've even managed to win a contest or two with 
> it, however I guess that what it lacks compared to RITTY must 
> be made up with big aluminum. 
> 
> All due respect, it's a shame that he's continued to be 
> bitter about it this long.  I've never used RITTY, always 
> considered it overpriced as compared to multimode hardware 
> modems that were as cheap if not cheaper and did more then 
> RTTY alone.  Although probably not as well, they performed 
> well enough for my needs at the time (read: poor college 
> student), without the requirements of what was specific hardware.  
> 
> >From reading this forum there are several users who seem to 
> know (to my
> uneducated programming experience) enough about DSP and 
> coding, to write a program coupled with the improvements in 
> technology and computing, that should blow RITTY out of the 
> water and put an end to the debate of how a software 
> application compares to a closed door, aged app that has no 
> hope of evolving for the future.
> 
> Would love to see it Dave.. wink wink..
> 
> Charlie
> KI5XP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.14/1920 - Release 
> Date: 1/27/2009 6:15 PM
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>