[RTTY] Intel NUC, anyone?

[Jim W7RY]

No...  But it is a HINT for radio and software manufactures....


I'll have to look at my Kenwood TS-590SG to see if it's the same as the 
Icom. It's not interfaced with N1MM. It's on my test bench.

73
Jim W7RY



-----Original Message----- 
From: David G3YYD
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 8:15 AM
To: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Intel NUC, anyone?

Is that a learning moment that says: Don't buy an ICOM?

73 David G3YYD

-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim W7RY
Sent: 27 October 2017 13:13
To: rtty at contesting.com; Joe Subich, W4TV
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Intel NUC, anyone?

Agreed Joe!

The Icom IC7300 is like this. I wish radio manufactures would allow AFSK
when in RTTY mode with a simple menu change.


There are ways to clean up an AFSK signal...

But then again.... You're selling interfaces!

73
Jim W7RY


-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Subich, W4TV
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 5:59 PM
To: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Intel NUC, anyone?


> Another is that some rigs have transmit filters that are only usable
> in FSK mode
Actually, that is receive filters.  Nearly all of the older Kenwood, Icom
and Yaesu rigs limited the narrow filter to "RTTY" (FSK) mode only.  Icom
still limits its "twin peak" filter to RTTY only.

While many rigs are not as clean on FSK as they can be on AFSK, FSK is a
whole lot cleaner than many AFSK signals (particularly those with "Windows
noises", hum, clipping products from over driving the mic preamp, RFI due to
uncorrected common mode RF on the antenna leads, open ground connections,
audio from open microphones, etc.  With FSK it is easier to generate a
"passable" signal for those who either do not care or don't know how to
generate a clean AFSK signal.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 10/26/2017 6:21 PM, iain macdonnell - N6ML wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Peter Laws <plaws0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:14 PM, David G3YYD <g3yyd at 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.
>
> That's kindof a weak argument. Sending CW with a straight-key is a
> skill (some would say an art). There's no special (operating) skill
> involved in FSK vs. AFSK.
>
> The usual argument for FSK is that you don't have to worry about
> getting the audio level right, and keeping the audio clean. Another is
> that some rigs have transmit filters that are only usable in FSK mode
> (IIUC).
>
> 73,
>
>      ~iain / N6ML
> _______________________________________________
> 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