[WriteLog] MMTTY V1.63

Donald Eriksen don.wsixffh at verizon.net
Wed Jan 29 22:37:49 EST 2003

My apoligies to Jim also for the late post, I had promised him a comparison
report. Also, sorry to all the CW/SSB folks that must be sick of the
RITTY/MMTTY blather, but it is an important discussion for RTTY ops.

My setup is similar to yours, Walt, except I used one computer with my one
receiver's audio going to the two sound cards. I used MMTTY v. 1.63 and
RITTY v. 4.53.

I waited until I used the two programs in the BARTG test to report, but I've
concluded that a contest is not necessarily the best place to compare. The
transmissions are short and the signals usually pretty well above the noise.
(except for the note 1), below)

I made several comparisons of non-contest QSO's that were quite long, and
rotated the beam away to get weak signals. Under most of the very weak
signal conditions MMTTY copied better (less dropped characters).
During the contest, the two programs were about even with two very
pronounced exceptions:

1) On 80 meters with at least S5 noise and very weak signals, (poor antenna
here), MMTTY was practically useless to me. It was dropping characters all
over the place. RITTY, on the other hand was copying nearly perfectly!

2) One signal from a S.A. station ( I wish I remembered the call) had a
weird flutter and MMTTY copied his call repeatedly, while RITTY rarely got
the call right.

I had MMTTY set to the Profile 3 (P3), Fluttered Sigs., (FIR) demod setting
and tried RITTY in both POL and MUL settings.

Please understand I have no axe to grind here, I love both of these
outstanding programs. I would use MMTTY anytime, but I won't stop using
RITTY until it gets so obsolete I can't use it anymore. I'll probably have
both side-by-side in all the contests I run.

Incidently, I only used RITTY for FSK transmit, so I didn't run into any of
the recently reported (and soon to be corrected, I'll bet) problems with
MMTTY v 1.63. I'm looking forward to Don's (AA5AU) beta test of the  new
MMTTY engine.

Thanks for the patience and BW,  Don W6FFH   don.wsixffh at verizon.net

----- Original Message -----
From: "Walt Niemczura" <walt at hawaii.rr.com>
To: <WriteLog at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 12:46 AM
Subject: Re: [WriteLog] MMTTY V1.63

> Jim Reisert AD1C wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> > Does anyone have both RITTY and MMTTY 1.63 who can make a side-by-side
> > comparison?
> >
> > 73 - Jim AD1C
> >
> Sorry for the late post on this question from Jim but I JUST got
> around to checking this out.
> In this weekend's BARTG I was able to run a side-by-side comparison of
> MMTTY 1.63 and the last RITTY I have (4.51 I believe). No, I didn't do
> SO2R but fed the audio off to almost identical sound cards on two
> different computers.
> On weak signal RX 1.63 is as good as RITTY. There is no detectable
> difference. In fact MMTTY might be a bit better. Then again it is
> hard to tell the difference between the two. Both had excellent copy
> on signals I could barely hear or see on the XY scope (in MMTTY).
> Unfortunately I was not on to work any polar path stations so I
> can't comment on flutter issues but the older 1.62 was very close
> to RITTY in earlier comparisons (CQWW DX in September).
> I'm a bit confused by the references to the "MMTTY engine". I thought
> that the MMTTY stand alone and the module that appeared when you
> used MATTE as a plug-in were one in the same.
> In the former case you executed the program directly with all it's
> stand alone features. In the latter case the application plug in call
> MMTTY in a specific manner which executed a limited mode that  used
> an I/O stream to pass information back and forth the the calling
> application. My understanding is that the engine and stand alone use
> base program. It is the method that executes the MMTTY.EXE that
> differs. Then again, I could be wrong. There is historical precedent
> for this possibility.
> That said, I was using the direct operation in full program mode for
> this weekends test. I didn't do any TXing with MMTTY so I didn't
> encounter any problems with the function keys. However, that was not
> a problem we noticed at Chen's place during RU where we did use 1.63
> as a plug-in to WriteLog.
> 73 es Aloha,
> Walt
> _______________________________________________
> WriteLog mailing list
> WriteLog at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog

More information about the WriteLog mailing list