I'm not suggesting changing the RTTY FSK standard. I'm suggesting a better detection scheme for the existing RTTY standard.
73, Frank KF6E On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 7:54 PM David Gilbert <xda...@cis-broadband.com> wrote: > > I'm not so sure it would be that easy. All of the WSJT-X modes require > some pretty rigid rules, not the least of which is fixed time frames > closely locked to the same reference. They also require some pretty > narrowly constrained message formats. I really doubt that very many > current RTTY users would be willing to give up their current flexibility. > If they were, they'd be a whole lot better off just to migrate to FT8 or > FT4. > > Besides, the RTTY protocol by definition has some rather severe > limitations, only two tones being one of them. > > 73, > Dave AB7E > > > On 1/14/2020 5:21 PM, Frank Kirschner wrote: > > Dwayne, > > That's what I suggested some time ago. Not only would it put all the > digital modes I use together in one program, but it would provide an > opportunity to implement a really good RTTY detection algorithm. Some of > the current programs require a very high S/N, and with the signal > processing know-how of the originators of WSJT-X, I'm sure that could be > improved upon. > > 73, > Frank > KF6E > > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 2:28 PM Dwayne Sinclair <nna...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hey all, >> >> My background is IT infrastructure with some code development and I >> although I have been active in the amateur radio community for less than a >> year, given my software, IT infrastructure background, and electronics >> background I have been assisting my local amateur radio community in all >> aspects of computer interfacing to radios. First off, I am really impressed >> with what has been accomplished with WSJT-X and I am an avid user of all >> digital protocols including FT8, FT8 WSPR and others. I recently attended a >> DX Club meeting and got to see first hand the resentment towards FT8 in the >> context of DXCC awards. I never got to speak in defense of FT8 but what I >> do believe is there is a basic misunderstanding on the fact that WSJT-X’s >> success is much about the interface that WSJT-X provides to managing QSO’s. >> “Ease of digital use” is completely missed on much of our older amateur >> radio community yet the same operators have fully embraced RTTY as a >> digital protocol. >> >> I would like to propose adding RTTY to WSJT-X for two reasons 1. As a >> means to reframe the DXCC discussion away from FT8 itself to “it’s just a >> UI for managing QSO’s”, and 2. I believe WSJT-X would be a great tool for >> RTTY. From an implementation perspective it may be possible to run interval >> and interval less with RTTY with the WSJT-X UI. >> >> Regards Dwayne Sinclair NA6US >> Redondo Beach, CA >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing > listwsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.nethttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > > > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel >
_______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
