[RTTY] My thoughts on RTTY analysis

[Jeff Blaine]

The bandwidth thing gets a bad name.  It's really not in anyone's best 
interest to have a wide signal, including your own.

One reason for that is the fat signal is harder to tune.  That means guys 
tracking your run station while in S&P take more time fiddling with the 
dial.  So as a runner, you have a lower rate to some extent by the tuning. 
I see the same effect when using NaP3 for tuning - trying to figure out 
where the main tones in some fat stations where the first sideband may look 
almost as strong as the primary tones the the waterfall.

Next you lose because guys who normally would jump into the contest (and be 
either S&P to your run, or guys you could call in S&P yourself) are not 
there at all.  Participation is lower.  Sure you can argue that a guy can 
run up the band and find a clean spot.  But some guys see (for example) the 
RTTY running into 7125 or 14150 and think it's too far up in the band 
anyway.  Sure these are easy-out kinds of excuses, but I hear them locally 
after every big contest.  Maybe they are just the convenient excuses, but I 
wonder how many guys in the less equipped category do not join the contest 
because they don't think they can find a slot.

There is a belief that having a fat signal keeps guys away from your 
doorstep.  But that's not the problem at all.  The fat sideband you have, if 
matched by your neighbor, means he's putting as much crap into your band 
pass as you are in his, even though you are separated a bit.  Why is that a 
problem?  Because ALL rigs, regardless of maker, type or filtering 
capability CANNOT filter in-band energy.  This is the RTTY equivalent of the 
SSB splatter or the CW click.  The net result is that because of your fat 
signal, there are less participants and as a result you have a lower score.

Of course I don't discount the possible effect of having a monster signal 
next to yours acting to desense your rig.  But I can argue that it's more of 
an operator worry than a gear worry because with proper use of filtering and 
attenuation, combined with the huge DR of the current crop of AF decoders, 
combine to mean the signal can be a monster **if** it's clean and there is 
no in-band content.  Some may say that I don't live next to GKM or any of 
the other big guns - and maybe I don't appreciate this as much.  But with 
the signal strength dropping half with each doubling of distance, the circle 
of outright concern is geographically pretty small in the scheme of things. 
In any event, this seems to be the number one justification I hear for guys 
wanting a fatter contest signal.  Too bad because it's the in-band energy 
from sidebands that is wiping out your faint DX, not your rigs reduction in 
gain caused by AGC action.

RTTY contests would be better for everyone if every guy's signal is as 
crispy clean as they can make it.  Not for the other guy, but for the 
reciprocation that you get from a general awareness and a general 
improvement over time where one guy at a time is doing what they can.

73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie

-----Original Message----- 
From: Lee Roberts
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 2:03 PM
To: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] My thoughts on RTTY analysis

Phil Sussman <psussman at pactor.com> wrote ..
>
> I think of RTTY as a hobby not as an obsession of a perfect RTTY signal.
>

I agree. I guess that's why I don't have a $3000+ rig or a StepIR or a 100+
foot tower. But, if there's money in it for the top score, I'll consider
spending the bucks.  But, I sure would like to at least come close to the 
top
score. Oh well.

But, since I use the rig's FSK I guess I'm one of those that take up too 
much
bandwidth.
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty