Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+PSK31\s+is\s+faster\s+\(Was\s+FD\s+RTTY\s+Question\)\s*$/: 43 ]

Total 43 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [RTTY] PSK31 is faster (Was FD RTTY Question) (score: 1)
Author: Kok Chen <chen@mac.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:48:38 -0700
That is the correct thing to do, if your rig can only go up to 100 watts. Remember that PSK31 has a crest factor of about 3 dB. By the time your idle Varicode produces 50 watts average RMS output, th
/archives//html/RTTY/2012-06/msg00124.html (7,994 bytes)

22. Re: [RTTY] PSK31 is faster (Was FD RTTY Question) (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:39:33 -0400
Chen, Does cocoaModem provide a way to set the data rate for ASCII down to 45.45 baud? Moving to 45.45 baud ASCII (ITA-5) would provide the benefits discussed while maintaining compatibility with all
/archives//html/RTTY/2012-06/msg00125.html (13,112 bytes)

23. Re: [RTTY] PSK31 is faster (Was FD RTTY Question) (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:43:10 -0400
Again, why couple a better code to higher speed with poorer S/N and wider bandwidth? Why not stick with 45.45 baud and compatibility with all the MMTTY/Windows installations linked to EXTFSK with its
/archives//html/RTTY/2012-06/msg00126.html (14,236 bytes)

24. Re: [RTTY] PSK31 is faster (Was FD RTTY Question) (score: 1)
Author: Ron Brown <bctech58@shaw.ca>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:48:26 -0700
It's amazing that this happens when most if not all programs for PSK allow you to create profiles I have a number of them one for chit chat,one for DX, one for contesting,etc in the case of the conte
/archives//html/RTTY/2012-06/msg00127.html (12,056 bytes)

25. Re: [RTTY] PSK31 is faster (Was FD RTTY Question) (score: 1)
Author: Kok Chen <chen@mac.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 22:19:49 -0700
cocoaModem has duplicate wideband 2-receiver RTTY interfaces. One uses Baudot encoding and the other uses ASCII encodings. You can select either interface dynamically. The Baudot interface is restric
/archives//html/RTTY/2012-06/msg00128.html (11,138 bytes)

26. Re: [RTTY] PSK31 is faster (Was FD RTTY Question) (score: 1)
Author: Tom Osborne <w7why@frontier.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 23:05:13 -0700
Hi Chen I had a model 28 here 'back when', but it was only a 60wpm machine (I think it was 45 baud). Some of the 28's actually had a transmission that could shift from 60 to 75 and some 100 wpm. I ca
/archives//html/RTTY/2012-06/msg00129.html (9,537 bytes)

27. Re: [RTTY] PSK31 is faster (Was FD RTTY Question) (score: 1)
Author: Kok Chen <chen@mac.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:14:30 -0700
Aha, Wikipedea has the answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletype_Model_28 The KSR28 is a Baudot machine. By using Google, I then found this: http://simh.trailing-edge.com/pdf/pdp18b_doc.pdf The f
/archives//html/RTTY/2012-06/msg00130.html (9,464 bytes)

28. Re: [RTTY] PSK31 is faster (Was FD RTTY Question) (score: 1)
Author: Ed <autek@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 06:58:11 -0400
Yes you can use 45.45 with ASCII in fldigi. The interface is completely user configurable. http://www.w1hkj.com/FldigiHelp-3.21/configRTTY.html Ed W3NR _______________________________________________
/archives//html/RTTY/2012-06/msg00131.html (9,145 bytes)

29. Re: [RTTY] PSK31 is faster (Was FD RTTY Question) (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:53:44 -0400
OK, I was looking in the wrong place ... expected to find data rate in Preferences rather than "Aux". Yes, one can choose 45.45 baud with ASCII. However, choosing ITA-5 requires using the "custom" s
/archives//html/RTTY/2012-06/msg00132.html (13,838 bytes)

30. Re: [RTTY] PSK31 is faster (Was FD RTTY Question) (score: 1)
Author: k4adr@comcast.net
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 00:33:18 +0000 (UTC)
Is this a ritty reflector? -- Original Message -- Anybody want to try ASCII? I've never made a QSO. I'm calling CQ at 14.088.5 MHz. Paul, N8HM _______________________________________________ RTTY mai
/archives//html/RTTY/2012-06/msg00134.html (14,655 bytes)

31. Re: [RTTY] PSK31 is faster (Was FD RTTY Question) (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:15:55 -0700
Yes, and any other digital mode, as explained in the subscription web page at http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/RTTY Please note the very first sentence, right at the end. 73, Bill W6WRT R
/archives//html/RTTY/2012-06/msg00135.html (9,589 bytes)

32. 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)

33. Re: [RTTY] PSK31 is faster (Was FD RTTY Question) (score: 1)
Author: Kok Chen <chen@mac.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 22:56:28 -0700
45.45 baud is not only allowed in RTTY contesting, it is the Amateur RTTY standard. The weird number (more precisely 45.454545... baud) comes from the 22.0 ms bit period of the noisy boat anchors tha
/archives//html/RTTY/2012-06/msg00142.html (8,628 bytes)

34. Re: [RTTY] PSK31 is faster (Was FD RTTY Question) (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 23:25:42 -0700
The modes that are more robust (accurate) are slow. The modes that are faster are less robust. This issue has been debated for years. For contesting, especially for multi-hop DX QSOs where PSK falls
/archives//html/RTTY/2012-06/msg00143.html (9,009 bytes)

35. 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)

36. Re: [RTTY] PSK31 is faster (Was FD RTTY Question) (score: 1)
Author: Tom Osborne <w7why@frontier.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 14:16:20 -0700
HI Andy I think one thing that makes it really slow is that most PSK op's that I've worked just send canned macro's back and forth. You ask a question and you get rig, QSL route, grid square, date an
/archives//html/RTTY/2012-06/msg00145.html (9,347 bytes)

37. Re: [RTTY] PSK31 is faster (Was FD RTTY Question) (score: 1)
Author: Kok Chen <chen@mac.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 14:24:00 -0700
The PSK31 squelch tail had been discussed on this reflector even back in 2007: http://lists.contesting.com/_rtty/2007-11/msg00124.html But, as far as I know, no contest program has attempted to elimi
/archives//html/RTTY/2012-06/msg00146.html (8,672 bytes)

38. Re: [RTTY] PSK31 is faster (Was FD RTTY Question) (score: 1)
Author: Kok Chen <chen@mac.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 15:02:12 -0700
Here is a suggestion. Since many of the "PSK programs" really just use Moe AE4JY's WinPSK DLL anyway, why don't "someone" who is Windows savy modify WinPSK so that it: 1) converts all upper case to l
/archives//html/RTTY/2012-06/msg00147.html (9,672 bytes)

39. Re: [RTTY] PSK31 is faster (Was FD RTTY Question) (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 18:39:00 -0400
Moe's DLL does not have a particularly long "squelch tail" at the end of transmission (at least when used with AA6YQ's WinWarbler). It's slightly more than 500 msec. The real problem is the PSK31 "pr
/archives//html/RTTY/2012-06/msg00149.html (10,648 bytes)

40. Re: [RTTY] PSK31 is faster (Was FD RTTY Question) (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:19:57 -0700
REPLY: Agreed. I think SSB is the most efficient mode for contest exchanges, but I greatly prefer RTTY. To each his own. 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing li
/archives//html/RTTY/2012-06/msg00151.html (8,708 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu