Good friend K1GQ wondered out loud about real data comparing K3 RTTY decode
to software decoders. Here is fifteen minutes of real data.
Attachment 1. K3 decode captured by K3 Utility program. K3 width 400 Hz.
Didn't fiddle with K3 decode parameters--used factory defaults.
Attachment 2. MMTTY decode. AA6YQ FIR512 profile for first five minutes,
them Fluttered Signals (FIR) profile for last ten minutes.
If attachments didn't make it to list, email me and I will send them to
you.
Data captured during first fifteen minutes of 18 March zulu NCCC RTTY
Sprint.
Used MMTTY cross bars to tune.
The sometimes frantic NS is a good test with lots of frequency changes,
great signal-strength variability, and QRM.
My take is that MMTTY is superior to K3 decode, but I was pleasantly
surprised by how well K3 decode performed.
My work is done. I'll leave it to others to draw more rigorous conclusions.
Regardless of relatively decode performance of K3 versus MMTTY, I believe
the most important plus of MMTTY and similar programs is call and exchange
parsing, highlighting, and clicking into log window.
When contesting, I have one MMTTY window and two 2Tone windows open and I
constantly scan all three. My experience is that sometimes MMTTY is better,
sometimes 2Tone Flutter is better, and sometimes 2Tone Selective is better.
I often end up integrating bits and pieces from all three windows to
complete a contact. That's part of what makes RTTY contesting fun. Your
print may vary.
Diddle Exuberantly,
Hank, W6SX
MMTTY.txt
Description: Text document
K3 Decode.txt
Description: Text document
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|