RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

[RTTY] K3 RTTY bandwidth already too narrow?

To: rtty@contesting.com, elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: [RTTY] K3 RTTY bandwidth already too narrow?
From: RLVZ@aol.com
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 16:15:17 -0400 (EDT)
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
I understand the desirable effects of  reducing bandwidth... but sometimes 
I wonder if the K3's transmit bandwidth  on RTTY is already too narrow.  
Case in point: I enjoy operating a lot of  RTTY contests, but even when I'm 
running 1,500 watts... I continually have  stations that move in real close to 
me and cause me a  tremendous amount of received interference.  (I often 
have to QSY  which is frustrating when I've got a nice run taking place)  And  
that's when I'm running my receive filters tight, such as: 250hz roofing  
filter with DSP filter set at 350hz.  (though I prefer to use my 400hz  
roofing filter with a 400hz DSP setting as it copies signals better)  So it 
seems 
to me that: 1) either their receiver selectivity  is better then that of my 
K3... which is unlikely, or 2) my K3 is already  transmitting a much cleaner 
signal then theirs.  If my K3 transmit signal  is already much cleaner then 
theirs, then I'm going to receive even greater QRM  if I narrow my K3 
transmit bandwidth further.  Which is why  I sometimes wonder if my K3 transmit 
b
andwidth isn't already too narrow.   Again, I appreciate the effort to 
reduce bandwidth as it's a good  thing, but more effort needs to be made for 
this 
to happen on a  global scale.  
 
I like the idea of stations with BIG bandwidths and  Key Clixs to be 
penalized or disqualified.  But that's unlikely to happen  with any regularity.
 
73,
Dick- K9OM
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 3/23/2013 12:01:41 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
rtty-request@contesting.com writes:

Send  RTTY mailing list submissions to
rtty@contesting.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,  visit
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
or, via email, send a  message with subject or body 'help' to
rtty-request@contesting.com

You can reach the person managing the list  at
rtty-owner@contesting.com

When replying, please  edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of RTTY  digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. Re: K3  reduced-bandwidth RTTY analysis (Jay WS7I)
2. Re: K3  reduced-bandwidth RTTY analysis (Kok Chen)
3. Re: K3  reduced-bandwidth RTTY analysis (Robert Chudek - K0RC)
4. Re:  K3 reduced-bandwidth RTTY analysis (Lee Roberts)
5. My  thoughts on RTTY analysis (Phil Sussman)
6. Re: My thoughts on  RTTY analysis (Bill Turner)
7. Re: K3 reduced-bandwidth RTTY  analysis (Jim W7RY)
8. First RTTY QRP Contest (Walter  Dallmeier)
9. Re: First RTTY QRP Contest (Elmar  PD3EM)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message:  1
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:25:20 -0700
From: Jay WS7I  <ws7ik7tj@gmail.com>
To: W8AEF <w8aef@q.com>
Cc:  rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] K3 reduced-bandwidth RTTY  analysis
Message-ID: <514CCC40.8020908@gmail.com>
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Yeah but they don't mix  the processor with it nor does the Mic Gain 
usually have a lot of  difference, which is of course why they do it that 
way and why most of us  contest guys and gals use FSK not that it is 
better but its easier.   They also don't shape the FSK or AFSK if you 
would rather either.   But they could.

On 3/22/2013 12:33 PM, W8AEF wrote:
> Most, maybe  all, Yaesu rigs run AFSK.  They call it FSK but when you 
> look at  the schematic you find the AFSK integrated circuit.
>
> de Paul,  W8AEF
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Jay WS7I
> Sent:  Friday, March 22, 2013 10:07 AM
> To: rtty@contesting.com
>  Subject: Re: [RTTY] K3 reduced-bandwidth RTTY analysis
>
> Guess  you missed the point.  Andy's work was with the K3 which he no
>  doubt owns and likes.  FLdigi no doubt has facilities to do testing  for
> their software and I have major doubts that their are thousands of  folks
> running AFSK RTTY on anything in any  case.
>



------------------------------

Message:  2
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:36:49 -0700
From: Kok Chen  <chen@mac.com>
To: RTTY Reflector <rtty@contesting.com>
Cc:  "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] K3  reduced-bandwidth RTTY analysis
Message-ID:  <8BAAA4EC-B837-4508-8865-D2AB1048814C@mac.com>
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Mar 22, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Joe Subich,  W4TV wrote:

> Similarly, even ARRL (most specifically W3IZ's review  in the current
> issue of QST) do not make the slightest mention of  signal purity issues
> like the absolutely horrible transmit phase noise  spectrum of the new
> FT-3000.

As bad as the FT-dx3000, its  transmit phase noise (about -100 dBc at a 1 
kHz offset) is still nowhere close  to the interference from an (continuous 
phase) FSK signal, whose keying  sidebands are in the region of -60 dBc at 
the same 1 kHz offset from one of  the FSK tones.

You might be confusing the transmit phase noise with the  poor reciprocal 
mixing (-82 dBc at 2 kHz offset) in the FT-dx3000.  The  latter only affects 
the owner, not the other occupants of the band.  But  even that number is 
still dominated by FSK keyclicks from a signal that is 2  kHz offset away 
(although not by much).

One way to look at it is that  if you receive with an FT-dx3000, you 
probably won't be able to tell if the  other people are filtering their RTTY 
signals :-).

73
Chen,  W7AY



------------------------------

Message: 3
Date:  Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:42:33 -0500
From: Robert Chudek - K0RC  <k0rc@citlink.net>
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] K3  reduced-bandwidth RTTY analysis
Message-ID:  <514CDE59.1070406@citlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;  charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

The only way we're going to clean up  the bands quickly is to pass 
legislation equivalent to the "Cash for  Clunkers" program. You know, 
something like "Your old rig plus $100 for a  brand new K3".

We could then be entertained watching videos on YouTube  of Icom 7800's, 
Kenwood 990's, Yaesu 5000's, and Swan 350's being fed into  scrap metal 
crushers.

...well, it was just a thought.

73 de  Bob - K?RC in  MN

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On  3/22/2013 4:36 PM, Kok Chen wrote:
> On Mar 22, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Joe  Subich, W4TV wrote:
>
>> Similarly, even ARRL (most  specifically W3IZ's review in the current
>> issue of QST) do not  make the slightest mention of signal purity issues
>> like the  absolutely horrible transmit phase noise spectrum of the new
>>  FT-3000.
> As bad as the FT-dx3000, its transmit phase noise (about -100  dBc at a 1 
kHz offset) is still nowhere close to the interference from an  (continuous 
phase) FSK signal, whose keying sidebands are in the region of -60  dBc at 
the same 1 kHz offset from one of the FSK tones.
>
> You  might be confusing the transmit phase noise with the poor reciprocal 
mixing  (-82 dBc at 2 kHz offset) in the FT-dx3000.  The latter only 
affects the  owner, not the other occupants of the band.  But even that number 
is  
still dominated by FSK keyclicks from a signal that is 2 kHz offset away  
(although not by much).
>
> One way to look at it is that if you  receive with an FT-dx3000, you 
probably won't be able to tell if the other  people are filtering their RTTY 
signals :-).
>
> 73
> Chen,  W7AY
>
> _______________________________________________
>  RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
>  http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>



------------------------------

Message:  4
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:31:12 -0600
From: Lee Roberts  <ham@n0sq.us>
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] K3  reduced-bandwidth RTTY analysis
Message-ID:  <8371099.NJzMKdWmWH@server1>
Content-Type: text/plain;  charset="us-ascii"

Too bad I don't have narrower transmit filters in my  TS2000 for FSK. I 
guess if 
I want to minimize my bandwidth I'll have to go  AFSK with waveshaping or 
get a 
rig with transmit waveshaping for  FSK.


------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Fri,  22 Mar 2013 19:37:50 -0400
From: Phil Sussman  <psussman@pactor.com>
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: [RTTY] My  thoughts on RTTY analysis
Message-ID:  <20130322193750.120853vergwoimoe@pactor.com>
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes";
format="flowed"

I've been following the thread and now I'm tempted to  step gingerly into
the lion's den. From a practical point of view, yes the  RTTY analysis is
interesting. However, I've got a point of  view.

First, I'll admit that no signal is absolutely perfect. So, in  real life
it is a matter of degree. We can approach a 'perfect' signal or  can head
to the other end. My ideal is to transmit a 'clean' signal or as  clean as
I can make it. It doesn't have to be perfect, it has to be set  correctly
and not overdriven. Propagation will twist whatever goes out and  I rely
on the ability of a good decoder. Note: I did not say 'perfect' or  'wave
shaped' or 'reconstructed' or 'sampled' or 'filtered' -- I said  'good.'

That's why I personally prefer a piece of professionally  designed hardware
to the 'engineered' computer sound card. That's not to  say the computer
card can't deliver performance -- of course it can. Yet, a  separate stand
alone modem is my preference. It's not perfect, but it works  better than
most for me.

Chasing a weak signal in the midst of a  plethora of RF is not my style. I
prefer WARC bands or other places of  'quiet.' We ought to assist others by
helping them achieve a good settings  and cleaning up the band, not trying
to eke out that last db.

I  think of RTTY as a hobby not as an obsession of a perfect RTTY  signal.

End of soap box,

Thanks for reading,

de Phil -  N8PS




------------------------------

Message:  6
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:52:28 -0700
From: Bill Turner  <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
To: RTTY Reflector  <rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] My thoughts on RTTY  analysis
Message-ID:  <b0vpk898j9t4em65i3fdlnbemp9hfpibe2@4ax.com>
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset=us-ascii

ORIGINAL MESSAGE: 
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013  19:37:50 -0400, Phil wrote:

>I think of RTTY as a hobby not as an  obsession of a perfect RTTY signal.

REPLY: 
Obsessions found all  over the ham spectrum. 

There are a couple of subscribers to the Amps  reflector who are obsessed
with IMD performance. Meeting the FCC specs is  not nearly good enough, they
want way more than that. 

It takes all  kinds. 

73, Bill  W6WRT


------------------------------

Message: 7
Date:  Fri, 22 Mar 2013 21:06:26 -0700
From: "Jim W7RY"  <w7ry@centurytel.net>
To: <k0rc@citlink.net>,  <rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] K3 reduced-bandwidth RTTY  analysis
Message-ID:  <E57A8A28482A41C78C2661FC197253B4@JimsLaptop>
Content-Type:  text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response

Oh please!

73
Jim W7RY


The  only way we're going to clean up the bands quickly is to pass
legislation  equivalent to the "Cash for Clunkers" program. You know,
something like  "Your old rig plus $100 for a brand new K3".

73 de Bob - K?RC in  MN



------------------------------

Message: 8
Date:  Sat, 23 Mar 2013 08:08:11 +0100
From: Walter Dallmeier  <walter.dallmeier@dl4rck.de>
To: Contesting RTTY  <RTTY@contesting.com>
Subject: [RTTY] First RTTY QRP  Contest
Message-ID:  <F49DACD5-F8E2-4846-B1EC-0C55A1518831@dl4rck.de>
Content-Type:  text/plain;    charset=us-ascii

Hello,

A very  interesting QRP RTTY contest is starting tomorrow. 
See  http://wwqrprtty.jimdo.com/ 

vy 73 de Walter,  DL4RCK




------------------------------

Message:  9
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 10:36:00 +0100
From: Elmar PD3EM  <info@pd3em.com>
To: Contesting RTTY  <RTTY@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] First RTTY QRP  Contest
Message-ID:  <E98CC917-A3CC-4283-B07F-84BE19C1FBDE@pd3em.com>
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Hi,

Looks indeed very interesting  to do a QRP RTTY Contest!
I didn't knew about this contest but I'll  join.

Hope to see a lot of you on the screen tomorrow!

73, Elmar  PD3EM

On Mar 23, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Walter Dallmeier wrote:

>  Hello,
> 
> A very interesting QRP RTTY contest is starting  tomorrow. 
> See http://wwqrprtty.jimdo.com/ 
> 
> vy 73 de  Walter, DL4RCK
> 
> 
>  _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing  list
> RTTY@contesting.com
>  http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty



------------------------------

Subject:  Digest Footer

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


------------------------------

End  of RTTY Digest, Vol 123, Issue  35
*************************************

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

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