Robert, Thanks for pointing this out. The link is for 1999.
Regarding WF1F/RITTY. The 1998 manual I have for WF1B (a DOS program) shows support for RITTY as a DOS TSR. Earlier manuals don't show it. I recall trying to get a sound card going in DOS. It was a real bear-- at least for the Soundblaster card I had. TSR's were flaky too. WF1B later became unusable as CPU speeds approached 1GHZ. It simply quit. Timing loop indicies became too large integers for their type in the code. Attempts to use "CPU slow down" programs to contiue to use WF1B were not too successful. The author had quit supporting WF1B at that time. The PASCAL source was available but nobody picked it up to fix this. RIP WF1B. All this history sort of indicates the 1999 to be the start of useful software/sound card RTTY for contesting or other use. 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Chudek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Brian, > > A minor correction to the statement "WF1B supported quite a few TU types but no sound cards." > > RTTY by WF1B supported the RITTY program by Brian, K6STI. http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/235 > > 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Brian A > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 2:45 PM > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: A challenge to RTTY operators! > > > Rick, > > I used a CP-1 TU up to the day the WF1B RTTY contest program became > unsupported. WF1B supported quite a few TU types but no sound cards. > That was around 1996 or 7. > > Here's a tidbit of info. > > Score required to win 1997 USA CQ WW RTTY single op assisted in 1997 = > 553k points. I still have the plaque for it. It was done with a CP-1 > and WF1B software. This was TU, not sound card era for RTTY. > > I don't believe MTTY and was created until several years later. MTTY > by itself was pretty much useless as a contesting program. It > couldn't even export its logs. It only supported a few rigs. It wasn't > until codes like Writelog and N1MMLOGGER integrated MTTY and such > engines in contesting programs that contesting became practical. > K6STI RTTY was in there too about the same time with perhaps the best > decoder available and a contesting interface. Piracy issues > essentially killed the K6STI program. The author stopped supporting it. > > The last few years about 1.5 million points is required to win the > same award. > > I ammend my statement. It wasn't just sound card RTTY but sound card > RTTY plus having it integrated into contesting programs that released > the contesting flood of RTTY stations. > > P.S. despite the sound card revolution, I stick with my HAL DXP38 DSP > TU. Sound card apps seem to have a nasty habit of refusing to work > for unknown reasons. One day they work, the next they don't. One has > to be a computer Geek to bring them back to life. This isn't just my > experience. > > 73 de Brian/K3KO > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <mrfarm@> wrote: > > > > I have to concur with Jose on this. I was a very active HF and VHF > > digital ham starting around 1981 with a homebrew XR2206/XR2211 TU that > > was from QST magazine and called "The State of the Art TU." It most > > assuredly was not, but being naive and new to RTTY found it to be a > very > > poor performer. It was actually only detecting one of the tones with > the > > tone decoder! > > > > This was before computers became popular and I was interfacing with a > > Model 15 TTY and a homebrew loop circuit. I was able to borrow an huge > > tube ST-6 design TU and that was much better. Then computers started to > > be available at more affordable prices and I moved to the Commodore 64 > > and a ROM based software package. Later I had the Kantronics UTU, and > > eventually an AEA CP-1 using the BMKMulty DOS software. This was before > > it could do Pactor, but the program already cost $100 for basic > > RTTY/AMTOR and then you had to buy the CP-1 or some kind of > interface to > > key the rig. BMKMulty eventually had a Pactor upgrade for I think > > another $100, but I have heard it was not that good. In fact, none of > > the third party hardware for Pactor was as good as the SCS modems, > > probably because they did not duplicate the "memory ARQ." > > > > 73, > > > > Rick, KV9U > > > > > > > > > > Jose A. Amador wrote: > > > Allow me to disagree (slightly) on the beginnings of RTTY popularity. > > > > > > I would "blame" Baycom, and the old Mix DOS versions. > > > > > > I used them (as well as quite few hams I know) way before > > > PSK31 and the sound card modes appeared. Actually, after using > them, I > > > built a hardware modem that improved a LOT their performance, > > > using both as terminals. > > > > > > I would say that PSK31 started the popularity of sound card modes. > > > > > > This is what I remember. Maybe others may have a different > perspective. > > > > > > 73, > > > > > > Jose, CO2JA > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > Brian A wrote: > > > > > > > > >> The advance that made RTTY so popular was the advent of sound > card RTTY. > > >> I can attest to that since I operated RTTY contests before and after > > >> sound cards happened. The number of stations exploded as did > > >> contesting activity. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
