[RTTY] SO2R

[Jim W7RY]

Agreed Ed!

I usually run SO2R but had some issues (mine) with software.

I didn’t run long but had a great time in the hours I did work.

73

Jim W7RY


-----Original Message----- 
From: Ed Muns
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 10:12 AM
To: RTTY Reflector
Subject: Re: [RTTY] SO2R

Yes, response delay can be due to an SO2R operator locked out while the
other radio is transmitting.  One of the SO2R skill-delvelopment challenges
is to continually reduce that delay.  Hence, ops like Fabi experiment to
improve their SO2R skill.

But, response delays often happen for other reasons by both SO1R and SO2R
operators.  RTTY is unique in that frequently the operator gets crosswise
with the logging/RTTY software and can't immediately transmit.  This has
nothing to do with SO2R.  I experience many more, and longer, response
delays from SO1R operator compared to SO2R because of these temporary
operational and software issues.

It is easy to make SO2R the reason for response delay, but that's not
reality.

Ed W0YK

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Martin Berube <ve2nmb at gmail.com> wrote:

> I stopped counting how many time I had to wait for a SO2R operatior to get
> back to me because he was transmitting on another band.  I beleive fabi's
> suggestion is a way to shorten this wait time so the experience become
> enjoable to all contester.
>
> Thanks,
>
> 73, Martin VE2NMB
>
> 2015-09-28 10:08 GMT-04:00 Ed Muns <ed at w0yk.com>:
>
> > Why is RTTY different than CW and SSB?
> >
> > It is normal to send your call just once in response to a CQing station
> on
> > CW and SSB.  Only if conditions warrant do you send it multiple times.
> > Maybe RTTYers can learn from CW/SSB experience.
> >
> > In the CQ message (Fabi's point), on all modes it is a trade off between
> > exposure and dueling CQ timing.  It can be argued that both are better
> with
> > Fabi's suggestion.  However, I still choose 2 times in my CQ message,
> even
> > for dueling CQs.
> >
> > 73,
> > Ed W0YK
> > On Sep 27, 2015 10:19 PM, Bill Turner <dezrat at outlook.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > ------------ ORIGINAL MESSAGE ------------(may be snipped)
> > >
> > > On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:01:11 -0400, VA2UP wrote:
> > >
> > > >Being this the CQWW weekend I thought it might just be a good
> > opportunity for some to try something out.
> > > >You can shorten the CQ macro by sending your call just once.
> > >
> > > REPLY:
> > >
> > > I really don't recommend sending your call only once. That's fine when
> > > your signal is strong at the other guy's end, but how do you know? It
> > > may be shorter for the CQ station but when signals are weak and/or
> > > covered by QRM it makes the other guy take more time to be sure he has
> > > it right. Given the nature of TTY over radio, I much prefer to see the
> > > other guy's call print the same at least twice. Then I'm sure.
> > >
> > > When I'm replying to a CQ I send my call three times. I get very few
> > > requests for a repeat. It bugs me when someone replies to my CQ and
> > > sends their call only once. Did it print right or not?  Fortunately
> > > very few ops do that.
> > >
> > > 73, Bill W6WRT
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > RTTY mailing list
> > > RTTY at contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> > _______________________________________________
> > RTTY mailing list
> > RTTY at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> >
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty