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
|