Elecraft

K3 rtty decode vs: computer decode

Classic

List

Threaded

17 messages Options

Jim Hoge-2

K3 rtty decode vs: computer decode

Greetings,

I have played just a bit with the rtty via cw function of the K3 and am curious if my casual observations match those of others. It appears that the K3 onboard decoder takes a back seat in rtty decode ability to a radio/computer/mtty combination. Agree/disagree/thoughts?

73,
Jim W5QM
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Wes (N7WS)

Re: K3 rtty decode vs: computer decode

No comparison. IMHO, wasted effort by Elecraft Engineering.

Wes N7WS

On 3/21/2014 8:45 AM, Jim Hoge wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I have played just a bit with the rtty via cw function of the K3 and am curious if my casual observations match those of others. It appears that the K3 onboard decoder takes a back seat in rtty decode ability to a radio/computer/mtty combination. Agree/disagree/thoughts?
>
> 73,
> Jim W5QM
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Phil Wheeler-2

Re: K3 rtty decode vs: computer decode

But handy in a portable rig.

Phil -- Sent from my iPhone 5S

> On Mar 21, 2014, at 9:05, "Wes (N7WS)" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> No comparison. IMHO, wasted effort by Elecraft Engineering.
>
> Wes N7WS
>
>> On 3/21/2014 8:45 AM, Jim Hoge wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I have played just a bit with the rtty via cw function of the K3 and am curious if my casual observations match those of others. It appears that the K3 onboard decoder takes a back seat in rtty decode ability to a radio/computer/mtty combination. Agree/disagree/thoughts?
>>
>> 73,
>> Jim W5QM
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Brian Hunt

Re: K3 rtty decode vs: computer decode

In reply to this post by Jim Hoge-2

I've found the K3 decode is adequate for casual contacts like W1AW/x when I find them. Tuning is a bit touchy and the incoming signal needs to be strong. Good for a quickie, though. I use the paddle for xmit.

73,
Brian, K0DTJ

> I have played just a bit with the rtty via cw function of the K3 and am curious if my casual observations match those of others. It appears that the K3 onboard decoder takes a back seat in rtty decode ability to a radio/computer/mtty combination. Agree/disagree/thoughts?
> W
> 73,
> Jim W5QM
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Dave Barr-2

Re: K3 rtty decode vs: computer decode

In reply to this post by Jim Hoge-2

More like the rumble seat.

Dave, K2YG

Original message:
From: Jim Hoge<[hidden email]>
To: Elecraft Reflector<[hidden email]>
Subject: [Elecraft] K3 rtty decode vs: computer decode

I have played just a bit with the rtty via cw function of the K3 and am curious if my casual observations match those of others. It appears that the K3 onboard decoder takes a back seat in rtty decode ability to a radio/computer/mtty combination. Agree/disagree/thoughts?

73,
Jim W5QM

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Bill Breeden

Re: K3 rtty decode vs: computer decode

In reply to this post by Jim Hoge-2

Jim,

My observations from a side by side comparison between my K3's internal
decode and MMTTY are similar to yours. That being said, the ability to
decode and then quickly call in RTTY or PSK31 mode when an opportunity
presents itself using the K3 by itself has been very useful to me. My
best confirmed contact in RTTY mode is 9N1AA in Nepal and I would have
missed him if I had waited to bring up my computer with RTTY software.
Looking at my log from the point when I started using my K3, I see that
I have worked and confirmed 75 additional digital mode entities,
bringing my DXCC digital mode total to 185. Nearly all of those new
ones were worked from the front panel of my K3. I usually don't bother
to bring up my RTTY software unless I intend to participate in a digital
mode contest or QSO party. I wish the K3 had PSK63 mode built in as well.

I don't know if I would feel the same way if I didn't have a P3. I find
the P3 an almost indispensable tuning indicator for the digital modes.

73,

Bill - NA5DX

Original message:
From: Jim Hoge<[hidden email]>
To: Elecraft Reflector<[hidden email]>
Subject: [Elecraft] K3 rtty decode vs: computer decode

I have played just a bit with the rtty via cw function of the K3 and am curious if my casual observations match those of others. It appears that the K3 onboard decoder takes a back seat in rtty decode ability to a radio/computer/mtty combination. Agree/disagree/thoughts?

73,
Jim W5QM

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Jim Brown-10

Re: K3 rtty decode vs: computer decode

In reply to this post by Wes (N7WS)

On 3/21/2014 9:05 AM, Wes (N7WS) wrote:
> No comparison. IMHO, wasted effort by Elecraft Engineering.

My observations have been exactly thee opposite. I find that when I have
a RTTY signal carefully tuned in, the K3 decoder often beats MMTTY. The
carefully tuned part is critical, and I find that the tuning eye on
MMTTY is needed to accomplish that. :)

Although I am the new owner of a KX3, I haven't had time to use it much.
But my neighbor, W6GJB tells me that it's even better than the K3 at
RTTY decoding.

Lately I've adopted WinWarbler for non-contest RTTY operation, which is
a shell for MMTTY and 2Tone decoders.

73, Jim K9YC
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Bill Frantz

Re: K3 rtty decode vs: computer decode

The P3 works really well for tuning RTTY signals for the K3 to
decode. Adjust the Span so you can easily see both frequencies
and lay the band on top of the waterfall.

Cheers - Bill, AE6JV (who would be in a world of hurt without
the P3)

On 3/21/14 at 11:07 PM, [hidden email] (Jim Brown) wrote:

>My observations have been exactly thee opposite. I find that
>when I have a RTTY signal carefully tuned in, the K3 decoder
>often beats MMTTY. The carefully tuned part is critical, and I
>find that the tuning eye on MMTTY is needed to accomplish that. :)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz | QRP: So you can talk about | Periwinkle
(408)356-8506 | the ones that got away. | 16345
Englewood Ave
www.pwpconsult.com | | Los Gatos,
CA 95032

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Barry

Re: K3 rtty decode vs: computer decode

In reply to this post by Wes (N7WS)

Wes (N7WS) wrote

No comparison. IMHO, wasted effort by Elecraft Engineering.

Wes N7WS

Not at all a wasted effort. I used to be an active RTTY DXer (RTTY DXCC TOHR, all but BS7) and contester, but in my condo QTH, I just don't have the room or desire for a rat's nest of cables to external boxes. I've used it for several QSOs for new band-countries.

Barry W2UP

Raymond Sills

Re: K3 rtty decode vs: computer decode

I have to agree with Barry. For a modest amount of code space (Flash
RAM), they added a very useful capability for the casual or field
operator. I once worked a DX RTTY station via FSK-D mode with paddle
"keyboard". I could not have done that QSO any other way at that
time. The QSO was made more exciting by being on 40 meters, running 3
watts into an indoor mag loop antenna. :)

73 de Ray
K2ULR

On Mar 23, 2014, at 8:41 AM, Barry wrote:

> Wes (N7WS) wrote
>> No comparison. IMHO, wasted effort by Elecraft Engineering.
>>
>> Wes N7WS
>
>
> Not at all a wasted effort. I used to be an active RTTY DXer (RTTY
> DXCC
> TOHR, all but BS7) and contester, but in my condo QTH, I just don't
> have the
> room or desire for a rat's nest of cables to external boxes. I've
> used it
> for several QSOs for new band-countries.
>
> Barry W2UP

Wes (N7WS)

Re: K3 rtty decode vs: computer decode

In reply to this post by Barry

Congratulations on your achievement; very impressive.

But what "rat's nest of cables to external boxes"? Sure you need a computer,
but who doesn't log using one these days? After that, it's two cables from the
Line In/Line Out of the radio to the same on the computer. Same number of
cables as having both a straight key and a paddle :-)

Wes N7WS

On 3/23/2014 5:41 AM, Barry wrote:

> Wes (N7WS) wrote
>> No comparison. IMHO, wasted effort by Elecraft Engineering.
>>
>> Wes N7WS
>
> Not at all a wasted effort. I used to be an active RTTY DXer (RTTY DXCC
> TOHR, all but BS7) and contester, but in my condo QTH, I just don't have the
> room or desire for a rat's nest of cables to external boxes. I've used it
> for several QSOs for new band-countries.
>
> Barry W2UP
>
>
>

Barry

Re: K3 rtty decode vs: computer decode

Wes,
I'm not an AFSK fan, so it would be another COM port for FSK/PTT plus a box with a couple of 2N2222's for the FSK and PTT lines. I'm satisfied with my pre-programmed Mx buffers with callsign, 599, TU, etc. for the few RTTY QSOs I make these days.
73,
Barry W2UP
P.S. I don't use a straight key :-)

k6dgw

Re: K3 rtty decode vs: computer decode

Yes, the K3 certainly allows a multitude of modes, and within each mode,
several ways of doing it.

I'd really like to know ... no hidden aspersions here ... what the
difference is between direct FSK and AFSK. I use AFSK with two
RadioShack stereo cables between the laptop and the radio. N1MM with
MMTTY for contests, or one of several other sound card-friendly programs
for PSK and JT65 which I almost never use.

I'd really like to know, I'm not kidding and I'm not casting any
aspersions on any technique. My K3 provides for both, my AFSK seems to
work great and when I look at my transmitted spectrum, it looks like FSK
should look like.

And this has nothing to do with the number of cables behind the rig, the
back of my rack is visible as you come into the "shack" and my wife has
asked, "Why do you call it wireless?"

73,

Fred K6DGW
- Northern California Contest Club
- CU in the 2014 Cal QSO Party 4-5 Oct 2014
- www.cqp.org

On 3/23/2014 5:38 PM, Barry wrote:
> Wes,
> I'm not an AFSK fan, so it would be another COM port for FSK/PTT plus a box
> with a couple of 2N2222's for the FSK and PTT lines. I'm satisfied with my
> pre-programmed Mx buffers with callsign, 599, TU, etc. for the few RTTY QSOs
> I make these days.

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Barry

Re: K3 rtty decode vs: computer decode

Fred,
If set correctly, there's no difference. However, FSK is foolproof. It can't be overdriven with excessive audio input resulting in excess bandwidth and spurs. Some of it is historical, as in some older radios, narrow filters cannot be used in AFSK mode.
Barry w2UP

Wes (N7WS)

Re: K3 rtty decode vs: computer decode

FSK might not have "excess" bandwidth, but AFSK can have narrower bandwidth.

http://www.frontiernet.net/~aflowers/k3rtty/k3rtty.html#K3_AFSK_filter

On 3/24/2014 5:27 AM, Barry wrote:
> Fred,
> If set correctly, there's no difference. However, FSK is foolproof. It
> can't be overdriven with excessive audio input resulting in excess bandwidth
> and spurs. Some of it is historical, as in some older radios, narrow
> filters cannot be used in AFSK mode.
> Barry w2UP
>
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

k6dgw

Re: K3 rtty decode vs: computer decode

Well ... I'm not sure FSK is actually "foolproof," based on the number
of posts to this list about problems getting FSK running using various
external interfaces. It is true that AFSK is "Audio in/out" and can
overdrive things, not easy in a K3 but certainly possible. Even cheap
sound cards deliver essentially pure sine wave audio, the better ones do
even better.

One should never underestimate the populations' ability to screw up any
technology, but beyond that, and assuming that two hams are equally
smart and equally adept at setting their gear up, is there really any
discernable difference between the two methods with a K3? I think
that's my root question -- "What is it about direct FSK that makes folks
want to go to lengths to get it working?" And, I'm not so sure that
"direct FSK" in a K3 is what it was in a T-368 45 years ago.

I grant that with older rigs, carrier and opposite sideband suppression
could, being generous here, be questionable, and the AFSK result would
not be pretty. But that was a long time ago and we're talking about
K3's now.

73,

Fred K6DGW
- Northern California Contest Club
- CU in the 2014 Cal QSO Party 4-5 Oct 2014
- www.cqp.org

On 3/24/2014 4:33 PM, Wes (N7WS) wrote:

> FSK might not have "excess" bandwidth, but AFSK can have narrower
> bandwidth.
>
> http://www.frontiernet.net/~aflowers/k3rtty/k3rtty.html#K3_AFSK_filter
>
>
> On 3/24/2014 5:27 AM, Barry wrote:
>> Fred,
>> If set correctly, there's no difference. However, FSK is foolproof. It
>> can't be overdriven with excessive audio input resulting in excess
>> bandwidth
>> and spurs. Some of it is historical, as in some older radios, narrow
>> filters cannot be used in AFSK mode.
>> Barry w2UP

Jim Brown-10

Re: K3 rtty decode vs: computer decode

On 3/24/2014 5:30 PM, Fred Jensen wrote:
> Even cheap sound cards deliver essentially pure sine wave audio,

Not quite. I've measured audio distortion at -30dB re: carrier for a
reasonably OK laptop sound card just below clip. That means you have
spurs only 30 dB below your signal. Not very good. Distortion (and thus
those sidebands) drops by 10 dB re: carrier if you reduce the output
level by 6 dB (half the voltage). My measurements are of the audio
coming out of the sound card.

But I do agree that carefully generated AFSK is just fine, and that's
what I've always done.

73, Jim K9YC

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]