Excactly!. But this also is an inherent possiblility/advantage running PACTOR 1, in FSK mode both ARQ and PACTOR FEC mode.
And the Fec mode, defaulted with 2 repeats, can at the cost of speed be increased to 5 to increase robustnes. An extra advantage is fully 8bit information both in ARQ and Fec modes. The special IC 706 350hz narrow filter proved to be ideal for the porpose, even running 300baud GTOR FSK. I was surprised, testing both 500hz and 350hz. But of course you needed to be "right on target". WHY HASNT THIS BEEN USED MORE ALL THESE YEARS before you could "move filters" around in LSB and USB modes? Just a question. 73 de la7um Finn --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave AA6YQ" <aa...@...> wrote: > > The advantage of using FSK is that one can take advantage of the excellent > RTTY filters built into some transceivers. These filters are generally not > available when operating in USB/LSB. This is particularly important to > contesters operating in a crowded environment and DXers dealing with weak > signals. > > > > 73, > > > > Dave, 8P9RY > > > > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On > Behalf Of g4ilo > Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 1:54 PM > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part > 97 > > > > > > It also doesn't suffer from the ridiculous printing up garbage because a > shift character was lost. If there ever was an outdated mode, it's RTTY. > > Unfortunately logic or technical arguments play very little part in the > reason why people choose to use particular modes. Many RTTY operators insist > on actually FSK-ing their radios instead of using AFSK, even though it means > they have to accurately tune in every signal instead of just clicking on a > waterfall, which would surely be quicker. > > Julian, G4ILO > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> > , KH6TY <kh6ty@> wrote: > > > > The hope was that PSK63 could replace RTTY, being both spectrally more > > efficient, and more usable for a panoramic presentation for contesters > > to see who is on the band, but it never came about. Too bad, I think, > > because it would help reduce congestion during contests. PSK63's overall > > time to complete an exchange is roughly equal to RTTY (twice as fast as > > PSK31), which is considered too slow for "RTTY" contesting, but I don't > > understand why it has not been adopted. I even wrote an article on PSK63 > > for the National Contest Journal, but there appeared to be little > > interest and few comments. > > > > 73 - Skip KH6TY > > >
