ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
At 10:13 PM 1/10/2006, Jim Smith wrote:
>Thanks for the clarification Bill. I wasn't aware of the difference in
>AFC behaviour between FSK and AFSK. Yes, I'm using AFSK and no one
>seemed to have trouble copying me when I called so guess I was at least
>close enough for their AFC to grab me.
Right. That's how it's supposed to work.
>I think I've heard people saying that FSK was better than AFSK, although
>they didn't say why except for the potential problem of overdriving the
>rig and having people all up and down the band calling you.
That is the main problem. Sooner or later, an AFSK user will mis-set
his drive level and cause problems. With FSK that doesn't happen.
Another thing I like about FSK is you don't have to make any
correction for your frequency offset when reading your dial. Most if
not all rigs which have an FSK mode (not all do) will display the
MARK frequency on the dial, which is correct. With AFSK, some rigs
can be set to compensate but most can not and you have to do the
addition or subtraction yourself. A minor point, but important when
spotting stations. If one does not do the math, one's frequency will
be off by the amount of the audio tones, typically ~2 kHz.
Remember, AFSK was invented as a work-around for rigs which could not
do FSK. It was not the original design for RTTY.
>Being able to use the narrow filters in the MkV and speeding up S&P
>with Rx and Tx
>AFC seem to me like overwhelmingly powerful arguments in favour of AFSK.
To each his own. FSK, used properly, should not slow you down.
>BTW, had a new ticket newbie show up for ARRL RU. Actually got him
>running. Once he got the hang of it he said, "Hmm... this is pretty
>addictive." Hah, think I might have hooked another one.
I know just how he felt. I felt the same way, still do. :-)
>73, Jim VE7FO
Bill, W6WRT
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|