Not even being such a good DXer or Contest operator. But doing those
last events almost anytime as assisted I wouldn't care at all of the
second digit on RTTY spots.
A well known part of the S&P is to understand who is where and what's
going on. The second digit, would sound almost as any tracking of
(I)W3RUA or (I)W1AYD. Just a deep enough look at on a spot it's a slice
of my multipliers, or simple callers, search job.
I could understand that it is much more easy to keep up with pseudo
common worldwide frequency standard than to a de facto AI of the
software code. But adding a second digit with a 50% probability of
errors is almost unneeded.
MMTTY filter provide enough audio bandwidth when not too tightened. The
2Tone companion as a pure second and third demodulator have enough AFC
to pursue successfully the job.
The more elusive and thinnest signal get already decoded applying more
attention to filters type and bandwidth than to AFC. In some conditions
- and with some radios - even the best signal scare the AFC. It is OFF
here all the time.
When RUNning I have the CLARIFY on all the time. Now that also ICOM had
finally understood the need of a CAT CLEAR RIT command for it it's more
easy for who own one of those newest RTX.
Peoples that come on me are quite never, half of the times, dead on
locked on my tones. Adding a second digit will not help all that. Having
the clarify engaged, a responsive operator and some right setup for the
decoders filters is much more helping.
Anyway a second decimal digit will not disrupt that practice as it would
mean quite nothing in the real world ... of AFSK, old radio, slightly
misaligned RTX or audio boards and so on. CLEARRITT on QSO close and CQ,
responsive decoders and some operating skills are much more effective
than a second digit. As it it seems much more casual than effective. And
even if this last will not change real operation practices.
It would be different having the software ability to track QRG of spots
and correct it on the fly knowing theirs constant error on it. But there
is not that much of QSO number gain.
It seems to that the there is a poor ratio of the added complications
having it versus the effectiveness of having it. On both sides, S&P and RUN.
That's not a scientific response, you see, no math here.
73 de iw1ayd
PS anyway with all those peoples calling in as IW1AYD IW1AYD DE MYCALL
MYCALL MYCALL it wouldn't never be a problem to crank all the ways up
and down the RIT to catch that elusive signal. Isn't?
On 15/10/2015 18:00, rtty-request@contesting.com wrote:
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 16:37:24 -0500
From: "Jeff AC0C"<keepwalking188@ac0c.com>
To:<ed@w0yk.com>, "'Pete Smith N4ZR'"<n4zr@contesting.com>
Cc: "'RTTY Contesting'"<RTTY@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Contester preference - 1- versus 2-decimal-place
spots
Message-ID: <54F42A3C7E1A4F74BC09804A7E66919E@w520>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
It's probably even more important to the average RTTY contester who cannot
run as much as he would like, for whatever reason.
73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Muns
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 4:08 PM
To: 'Jeff AC0C' ; 'Pete Smith N4ZR'
Cc: 'RTTY Contesting'
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Contester preference - 1- versus 2-decimal-place spots
Good point about AFC. I abhor that feature and never use it, so don't
consider it much. To the extent spots are accurate to 2 decimal points
relative to the radio, then AFC would benefit S&P by reducing manual tuning.
I still shutter at the thought of this. ;>)
Ed W0YK
-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jeff AC0C
Sent: 14 October, 2015 12:16
To:ed@w0yk.com; 'Pete Smith N4ZR'
Cc: 'RTTY Contesting'
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Contester preference - 1- versus 2-decimal-place spots
There are several issues being comingled here.
I think that the absolute accuracy of the spot is more important. If you
are running S&P assisted, and the spots are accurate, then with a tight AFC
you don't have to hunt and rate is higher. So in this case the 2nd DP is a
benefit here. But if the spot tolerance is already sloppy, then a 2nd DP is
of no benefit.
As for the length of the pass frequency resolution, that's something that
the logger should really let you specify because in RTTY, 0.1 may be FB but
the same logger running CW probably would want that 2nd DP. Of course Ed is
THE MAN and so I will definitely take his word that 0.X is better in RTTY
than 0.XX.
73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Muns
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 1:59 PM
To: 'Pete Smith N4ZR'
Cc: 'RTTY Contesting'
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Contester preference - 1- versus 2-decimal-place spots
Any spot should simply be a starting point to tune in, copy and validate the
transmitting station's call sign. In less than 30 minutes, a new RTTY
operator should be able to develop the skill to tune in a signal by ear to
within 10-20 Hz in a second or two. No different than zero-beating on CW by
ear. That's good enough for most RTTY decoders.
Therefore, 2-decimal point spots are overkill and distracting. The operator
has to ignore/discard/round off the second decimal position if manual
tuning. Automatic spot tuning has no benefit from the second decimal. One
decimal point is plenty of resolution for finding and IDing a spot. For the
same reasons it is the optimum resolution for passing a QSY frequency, i.e.,
either 14083.7 or 14083.8 is better than 14083.76.
Ed W0YK
-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Pete Smith N4ZR
Sent: 13 October, 2015 18:44
To: RTTY Contesting
Subject: [RTTY] Contester preference - 1- versus 2-decimal-place spots
I'm doing some analysis of RTTY spots made by RBN nodes reporting 2
decimal place frequencies. Some of them I know to be using GPS
disciplined oscillators, while others aren't. The GPSDO stations
generally agree within 10 Hz, and are probably better than that because
of rounding errors. The others are surprisingly good, almost always
within the ± 0.1 KHz we seek generally from RBN nodes.
My questions: Do assisted RTTY contesters like to get 2-decimal spots?
Or are they so used to 1-decimal spots that they automatically joggle
tuning to get on the proper mark and space frequencies?
And... are inaccurate 2-decimal spots (still within ±1-decimal
tolerance) worse than 1-decimal, or essentially the same from an
operational perspective?
73, Pete N4ZR
Download the new N1MM Logger+ at
<http://N1MM.hamdocs.com>. Check
out the Reverse Beacon Network at
<http://reversebeacon.net>, now
spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
For spots, please use your favorite
"retail" DX cluster.
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 14:40:59 -0700
From: "Dave Hachadorian"<k6ll.dave@gmail.com>
To: "reflector RTTY"<rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Contester preference - 1- versus 2-decimal-place
spots
Message-ID: <209DF11BB45A482196330F29F264B8AD@Toshiba>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
It's pretty easy to tune stations exactly using the arrow keys. Of course, RIT
needs to be off, as it should be in S&P.
I use numpad keys 1,2,4 and 5 for nextmult-otherradio-bandmap and
nextqso-otherradio-bandmap, so my fingers are already over there near the arrow
keys.
Dave Hachadorian, K6LL
Yuma, AZ
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|