[RTTY] Intel NUC, anyone?

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

Ah, but they use EXTFSK (software FSK), not a true hardware UART
with a bit clock that is not subject to operating system jitter.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 10/27/2017 10:56 AM, Jay wrote:
> 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
>>
> 
>