I understand the desirable effects of reducing bandwidth... but sometimes I wonder if the K3's transmit bandwidth on RTTY is already too narrow. Case in point: I enjoy operating a lot of RTTY contests, but even when I'm running 1,500 watts... I continually have stations that move in real close to me and cause me a tremendous amount of received interference. (I often have to QSY which is frustrating when I've got a nice run taking place) And that's when I'm running my receive filters tight, such as: 250hz roofing filter with DSP filter set at 350hz. (though I prefer to use my 400hz roofing filter with a 400hz DSP setting as it copies signals better) So it seems to me that: 1) either their receiver selectivity is better then that of my K3... which is unlikely, or 2) my K3 is already transmitting a much cleaner signal then theirs. If my K3 transmit signal is already much cleaner then theirs, then I'm going to receive even greater QRM if I narrow my K3 transmit bandwidth further. Which is why I sometimes wonder if my K3 transmit b andwidth isn't already too narrow. Again, I appreciate the effort to reduce bandwidth as it's a good thing, but more effort needs to be made for this to happen on a global scale. I like the idea of stations with BIG bandwidths and Key Clixs to be penalized or disqualified. But that's unlikely to happen with any regularity. 73, Dick- K9OM In a message dated 3/23/2013 12:01:41 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
Send RTTY mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected] You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of RTTY digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: K3 reduced-bandwidth RTTY analysis (Jay WS7I) 2. Re: K3 reduced-bandwidth RTTY analysis (Kok Chen) 3. Re: K3 reduced-bandwidth RTTY analysis (Robert Chudek - K0RC) 4. Re: K3 reduced-bandwidth RTTY analysis (Lee Roberts) 5. My thoughts on RTTY analysis (Phil Sussman) 6. Re: My thoughts on RTTY analysis (Bill Turner) 7. Re: K3 reduced-bandwidth RTTY analysis (Jim W7RY) 8. First RTTY QRP Contest (Walter Dallmeier) 9. Re: First RTTY QRP Contest (Elmar PD3EM) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:25:20 -0700 From: Jay WS7I <[email protected]> To: W8AEF <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [RTTY] K3 reduced-bandwidth RTTY analysis Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Yeah but they don't mix the processor with it nor does the Mic Gain usually have a lot of difference, which is of course why they do it that way and why most of us contest guys and gals use FSK not that it is better but its easier. They also don't shape the FSK or AFSK if you would rather either. But they could. On 3/22/2013 12:33 PM, W8AEF wrote: > Most, maybe all, Yaesu rigs run AFSK. They call it FSK but when you > look at the schematic you find the AFSK integrated circuit. > > de Paul, W8AEF > > -----Original Message----- From: Jay WS7I > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 10:07 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [RTTY] K3 reduced-bandwidth RTTY analysis > > Guess you missed the point. Andy's work was with the K3 which he no > doubt owns and likes. FLdigi no doubt has facilities to do testing for > their software and I have major doubts that their are thousands of folks > running AFSK RTTY on anything in any case. > ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:36:49 -0700 From: Kok Chen <[email protected]> To: RTTY Reflector <[email protected]> Cc: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [RTTY] K3 reduced-bandwidth RTTY analysis Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mar 22, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: > Similarly, even ARRL (most specifically W3IZ's review in the current > issue of QST) do not make the slightest mention of signal purity issues > like the absolutely horrible transmit phase noise spectrum of the new > FT-3000. As bad as the FT-dx3000, its transmit phase noise (about -100 dBc at a 1 kHz offset) is still nowhere close to the interference from an (continuous phase) FSK signal, whose keying sidebands are in the region of -60 dBc at the same 1 kHz offset from one of the FSK tones. You might be confusing the transmit phase noise with the poor reciprocal mixing (-82 dBc at 2 kHz offset) in the FT-dx3000. The latter only affects the owner, not the other occupants of the band. But even that number is still dominated by FSK keyclicks from a signal that is 2 kHz offset away (although not by much). One way to look at it is that if you receive with an FT-dx3000, you probably won't be able to tell if the other people are filtering their RTTY signals :-). 73 Chen, W7AY ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:42:33 -0500 From: Robert Chudek - K0RC <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [RTTY] K3 reduced-bandwidth RTTY analysis Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed The only way we're going to clean up the bands quickly is to pass legislation equivalent to the "Cash for Clunkers" program. You know, something like "Your old rig plus $100 for a brand new K3". We could then be entertained watching videos on YouTube of Icom 7800's, Kenwood 990's, Yaesu 5000's, and Swan 350's being fed into scrap metal crushers. ...well, it was just a thought. 73 de Bob - K?RC in MN ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 3/22/2013 4:36 PM, Kok Chen wrote: > On Mar 22, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: > >> Similarly, even ARRL (most specifically W3IZ's review in the current >> issue of QST) do not make the slightest mention of signal purity issues >> like the absolutely horrible transmit phase noise spectrum of the new >> FT-3000. > As bad as the FT-dx3000, its transmit phase noise (about -100 dBc at a 1 kHz offset) is still nowhere close to the interference from an (continuous phase) FSK signal, whose keying sidebands are in the region of -60 dBc at the same 1 kHz offset from one of the FSK tones. > > You might be confusing the transmit phase noise with the poor reciprocal mixing (-82 dBc at 2 kHz offset) in the FT-dx3000. The latter only affects the owner, not the other occupants of the band. But even that number is still dominated by FSK keyclicks from a signal that is 2 kHz offset away (although not by much). > > One way to look at it is that if you receive with an FT-dx3000, you probably won't be able to tell if the other people are filtering their RTTY signals :-). > > 73 > Chen, W7AY > > _______________________________________________ > RTTY mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty > ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:31:12 -0600 From: Lee Roberts <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [RTTY] K3 reduced-bandwidth RTTY analysis Message-ID: <8371099.NJzMKdWmWH@server1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Too bad I don't have narrower transmit filters in my TS2000 for FSK. I guess if I want to minimize my bandwidth I'll have to go AFSK with waveshaping or get a rig with transmit waveshaping for FSK. ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:37:50 -0400 From: Phil Sussman <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: [RTTY] My thoughts on RTTY analysis Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" I've been following the thread and now I'm tempted to step gingerly into the lion's den. From a practical point of view, yes the RTTY analysis is interesting. However, I've got a point of view. First, I'll admit that no signal is absolutely perfect. So, in real life it is a matter of degree. We can approach a 'perfect' signal or can head to the other end. My ideal is to transmit a 'clean' signal or as clean as I can make it. It doesn't have to be perfect, it has to be set correctly and not overdriven. Propagation will twist whatever goes out and I rely on the ability of a good decoder. Note: I did not say 'perfect' or 'wave shaped' or 'reconstructed' or 'sampled' or 'filtered' -- I said 'good.' That's why I personally prefer a piece of professionally designed hardware to the 'engineered' computer sound card. That's not to say the computer card can't deliver performance -- of course it can. Yet, a separate stand alone modem is my preference. It's not perfect, but it works better than most for me. Chasing a weak signal in the midst of a plethora of RF is not my style. I prefer WARC bands or other places of 'quiet.' We ought to assist others by helping them achieve a good settings and cleaning up the band, not trying to eke out that last db. I think of RTTY as a hobby not as an obsession of a perfect RTTY signal. End of soap box, Thanks for reading, de Phil - N8PS ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:52:28 -0700 From: Bill Turner <[email protected]> To: RTTY Reflector <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [RTTY] My thoughts on RTTY analysis Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:37:50 -0400, Phil wrote: >I think of RTTY as a hobby not as an obsession of a perfect RTTY signal. REPLY: Obsessions found all over the ham spectrum. There are a couple of subscribers to the Amps reflector who are obsessed with IMD performance. Meeting the FCC specs is not nearly good enough, they want way more than that. It takes all kinds. 73, Bill W6WRT ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 21:06:26 -0700 From: "Jim W7RY" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [RTTY] K3 reduced-bandwidth RTTY analysis Message-ID: <E57A8A28482A41C78C2661FC197253B4@JimsLaptop> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Oh please! 73 Jim W7RY The only way we're going to clean up the bands quickly is to pass legislation equivalent to the "Cash for Clunkers" program. You know, something like "Your old rig plus $100 for a brand new K3". 73 de Bob - K?RC in MN ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 08:08:11 +0100 From: Walter Dallmeier <[email protected]> To: Contesting RTTY <[email protected]> Subject: [RTTY] First RTTY QRP Contest Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hello, A very interesting QRP RTTY contest is starting tomorrow. See http://wwqrprtty.jimdo.com/ vy 73 de Walter, DL4RCK ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 10:36:00 +0100 From: Elmar PD3EM <[email protected]> To: Contesting RTTY <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [RTTY] First RTTY QRP Contest Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi, Looks indeed very interesting to do a QRP RTTY Contest! I didn't knew about this contest but I'll join. Hope to see a lot of you on the screen tomorrow! 73, Elmar PD3EM On Mar 23, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Walter Dallmeier wrote: > Hello, > > A very interesting QRP RTTY contest is starting tomorrow. > See http://wwqrprtty.jimdo.com/ > > vy 73 de Walter, DL4RCK > > > _______________________________________________ > RTTY mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty ------------------------------ End of RTTY Digest, Vol 123, Issue 35 ************************************* ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[email protected] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
