[WriteLog] Best RTTY decoder

[Jim Smith]

I too use RITTY.  I have found that running the Rx audio through a mixer 
allows me to adjust the audio level as needed.  Originally, I had a lot 
of trouble getting reliable printing with signals S5 or lower.  Being 
able to adjust the audio level has taken care of that problem.  While 
you can adjust the sensitivity of RITTY when running it in DOS, I have 
found no way of doing that in the WL version.  Fiddling with the Windows 
volume controls during a contest is a non-starter for me.

In the process of doing this, I found my old PK-232 MBX without the new 
mods will print signals just as weak as RITTY will, provided, once 
again, that you adjust the input level properly.  (The mixer sure makes 
this easy - a different slide pot for each.)  I haven't compared them 
under QRM conditions.  So, now I have them printing in separate 
windows.  Sometimes the PK-232 gets it right when RITTY doesn't.

See my WPX RTTY story on 3830 for mnore info on this.

73 de Jim Smith   VE7FO

John Cashen wrote:

> Bill, W6WET wrote:
>
> "I know this doesn't answer you question directly, but you'd be better
> off to ditch the HAL and download MMTTY.  I've compared the two side by
> side using two computers with the same audio feed, and MMTTY beats the
> HAL hands down for pulling the weak ones out.  My DXP-38 has been
> gathering dust for several years now.  Anyone want it?  Make me an
> offer; it'll go cheap.
>
> And if you want the absolute best in RTTY decoding, purchase RiTTY by
> K6STI.  It isn't cheap - $100 - but it beats everything else I've tried.
> It requires specific soundcards and runs only under DOS (real DOS, not
> the Windows emulation).   Personally, I wouldn't be without it."
>
> I agree with Bill and have been saying so for several years now. When 
> one looks at what the HALs used to cost, RITTY seems good value for 
> money. Certainly MMTTY is the best value, being freeware. The 
> difference between the two S/W decoders is that RITTY is optimized for 
> RTTY contesting whereas MMTTY is more an all-purpose decoder. There 
> are several very important features in RITTY that makes it superior 
> for contesting whenever there are weak signals, or in QRN, or QRM 
> environments, or all three. When the S/N is high then both decoders 
> perform very well, but then so do most decoders.
>
> RITTY works very well in SO mode with both Writelog and RTTY(by WF1B), 
> but you cannot use two copies of RITTY with two separate sound cards 
> to use Writelog in SO2R as you can with MMTTY. RITTY was configured 
> without regard for a second sound card (or the advent of another board 
> standard other than ISA) and one must use a different decoder type for 
> the second radio. Some use their HAL ,while I (and others) use MMTTY 
> on a second sound card (PCI).I have had no significant problems except 
> that I couldn't make the new dueling CQs work in Writelog 10.45. This 
> was because of a timing problem with MMTTY and was presumably fixed in 
> 10.46G, but I still can't seem to make dueling CQs work.
>
> Since K6STI no longer upgrades RITTY and because  it is DOS-based and 
> limited to using only ISO sound boards, there will  eventually be only 
> obsolete S/W or hardware platforms that it will run on. What a shame 
> if technology were to  take a step backwards.   Wouldn't it be nice if 
> MMTTY or some other new Windows-based PCI/USB decoder were to capture 
> the contesting features that make RITTY so great so we could have it 
> on future machines?
>
> I for one would pay another $100.
>
> John  VK4UC
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.620 / Virus Database: 399 - Release Date: 3/11/04
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>WriteLog mailing list
>WriteLog at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
>WriteLog on the web:  http://www.writelog.com/
>  
>