[RTTY] Intel NUC, anyone?

[Jay]

As do Mountain West Radio Rigblaster Advantages.

On 10/27/2017 7:47 AM,
>
> > But then again.... You're selling interfaces!
>
> True.  However, the interfaces support *both* AFSK and FSK.
> If the user follows the instructions to use the transceiver
> mode that disables the microphone (or disconnects it with
> certain older Yaesu and Icom transceivers) and sets the
> audio level correctly, they will be able to make "clean"
> AFSK as long as their station does not have a common mode
> RF issue.  On the other hand, if the user can't set up
> his station for clean AFSK, he can still use FSK!
>
> 73,
>
>    ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 10/27/2017 9:13 AM, Jim W7RY wrote:
>> 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
>