RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] K3 reduced-bandwidth RTTY analysis

To: "rtty@contesting.com" <rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] K3 reduced-bandwidth RTTY analysis
From: "aflowers@frontiernet.net" <aflowers@frontiernet.net>
Reply-to: "aflowers@frontiernet.net" <aflowers@frontiernet.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
> The one fault I found with Andy's AFSK work is that he used the K3 with AFSK 
> filter 

Just to clear up any confusion, the *original* article that looks at the effect 
of waveshaping shows the K3 AFSK TX filter in only one of the figures (Figure 
15 to be exact).  All the others do not have this filter engaged.  Please keep 
in mind that until very recently, the only examples of bandwidth-reduced RTTY 
were from AFSK transmitters, and that allowed me to use real evidence both on 
the bench and off the air to illustrate the possibilities.  Without that I only 
could have spewed forth some hypothetical abstractions about how to improve the 
QRM situation...I'm sure that would have made for a thrilling discussion on 
this list....One of the main points was that there is no reason bandwidth 
reduction couldn't be done using logical keying internal to the radio so that 
we can forego a mess of cables, boxes, and gain knobs that are sometimes 
employed for AFSK.  Maybe Elecraft will be the first to make that available.
For any latecomers to the party, here is the original article which has been 
updated to include the fact that fldigi now has a shaped transmit spectrum by 
default.  I would also suggest that you read the email threads in January 2013 
on this reflector's archive, as Joe and others bring up some points of 
agreement, dissagreement, and other things that I did not address.  If you take 
the time to read through my stuff, please read or at least skim through the 
reflector archives as well.
http://www.frontiernet.net/~aflowers/k3rtty/k3rtty.html
 
Some some of the more active email threads to get you started:
 
http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/RTTY/2013-01/msg00134.html
http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/RTTY/2013-01/msg00170.html
http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/RTTY/2013-01/msg00224.html
Here are some real live spectra from the 2013 RTTY roundup so that one can get 
and idea of the variance that is out there in the wild (warning, signal #3 is 
PG-13):
http://www.frontiernet.net/~aflowers/rtty_examples/

Joe, I think you are referring to the follow-up article that looks specifically 
at the effect of the DSP pre-processing ahead of the RF exciter, i.e., the AFSK 
TX filter in the K3.   The idea there is just to demonstrate how effective (or 
not) that strategy really is even with imperfect, or even truely broken 
transmit chains.  Now, this happens to be a K3 with features that Elecraft 
implemented specifically in that radio, but there is no reason that DSP 
pre-processing couldn't be employed in other radios, should the manufacturer 
choose to.  An FT-1000D will not behave like this under the abuse I subjected 
this radio to, and there is a bold disclaimer that says as much before the 
implements of torture are brought out.  That's important if you are thinking 
about changing the way you do things.
Here is that article:
http://www.frontiernet.net/~aflowers/k3_afsk/
Of course, if Elecraft goes through with the wavshaping in their FSK generator 
one advantage to using AFSK with this particular radio will go away.
 
Andy K0SM/2
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

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