Re: [RTTY] Intel NUC, anyone?

[Ken K6MR <k6mr@outlook.com>]

The best RTTY interface (for FSK anyway) is the Microham.  I don’t do any 
“soundcard” modes, so having a bulletproof interface that just works when I 
need it is worth something.  I have the u2R but I believe they all pretty much 
work the same way.  Real UART programmed correctly.
Some limitations:  Windows only, and you need a radio that is clean when doing 
FSK (I have K3s).  Pricey, but so was pretty much everything else I have around 
here.  So in the scheme of things not an issue.

Ken K6MR

From: Peter Laws<mailto:plaws0@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 12:59
To: David G3YYD<mailto:g3yyd@btinternet.com>
Cc: RTTY contest group<mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Intel NUC, anyone?

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:14 PM, David G3YYD <g3yyd@btinternet.com> wrote:

> from FTDI. But why spend money on a box when you can just use AFSK for a
> very small sum in making your own sound card to rig lead.


Why do some hams use a straight key for CW?  A there are any number of
keyers and interfaces that can produce perfectly timed CW using a
keyboard for input.

Still looking for the answer for commercial interface boxes - I don't
recall seeing any complaints from people that use them of
poorly-formed RTTY ...


--
Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.contesting.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frtty&data=02%7C01%7Cdezrat%40outlook.com%7Ca54a661673074545604d08d51cac174a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636446447807417303&sdata=rJ4sd4lKum2zw81PNSTGZm%2FQmy6LRFS%2F7SZGHHUbRIs%3D&reserved=0

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