[digitalradio] Re: A challenge to RTTY operators!
Andy, Maybe it is a chicken and the egg thing. To have activity, you have to have activity. I don't think it has anything to do with the digital mode. 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. Surely those already having sound cards set up can operate other modes. Also some contesting programs already have PSK31/63/125 integrated in them. So it isn't for lack of contest softwar either. It thus must be something else. Here are two possible reasons. 1. Contesters If you don't have a large number of stations, workable at a high rate there's no interest. Why waste your time to just work a few? (Just ask HF contesters who operate VHF contests from remote areas. A total bore. I'm one. I spend a couple hours, work out the band and quit.) Ask contesters how they feel about Sunday afternoon during SS where their rate drops to 5% of average. They tell you they feel like a pit bull who has been trained to fight but has been chained, muzzled and castrated. But to get them back you have to convince those who have been turned off by lack of stations to get back on. Good luck on that. It is likely to take quite a bit of time. 2. Digital operators They seem to be mostly interested in ragchewing. I was driven from PSK31 by this longwindedness. I wanted to work new countries and lots of stations. Ragchewing is OK if you like it. I don't care for it even if the speed were PSK125. However, if you do, probably you won't like contesting. Getting them to like rapid fire QSO's is necessary. Good luck on that too. It may never happen. 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear RTTY-Fanatics > > > Many non-RTTY digital mode operators are puzzled about those avid RTTY > contesters who never seem to try other digital modes in contests. > Those same non-RTTY digi mode operators tell jokes about RTTY > old-timers who seem just stuck with the concept that ye olde RTTY is > way better than other digital modes for contests. They have > occasionally appealed to the RTTY old-timers to be daring and actually > try contesting with modes like DominoEX and PSK63 . Usually the > appeals have fallen on deaf ears , it seems like automobile drivers > appealing to stage-coach drivers to try that new fangled motor vehicle > concept. > > This weekend, you RTTY dudes have another chance to live dangerously > and actually try a mode that many think is BETTER than RTTY for > contesting . It may not really be "better" but it might actually be > almost as good. > > So come on RTTY-freaks, prove that stereo-type of the curmudgeonly > green machine addict to be as out of dates as..., as., .. well as > out of dates as RTTY via green machines! > > Andy K3UK > > Date and Time > Starting time is at 00:00 UTC, and ending time is at 24:00 UTC on > Sunday 18th November, 2007. > Objective > The European PSK Club has the honour to invite the radio amateurs all > over the world to participate in the EPC PSK63 QSO Party. The > objective of the competition is to establish as many contacts as > possible between radio amateurs around the world by using the BPSK63 > mode. Everybody can work everybody for QSO and multiplier credit. > BANDS AND FREQUENCIES > Participants are allowed to work on 160 meters (1838...1840 KHz), 80 > meters (3582...3584 KHz), 40 meters (7037...7039 KHz), 20 meters > (14072...14074 KHz), 15 meters (21082...21084 KHz) and 10 meters > (28082...28084 KHz). > TYPE OF COMPETITION > Transmitters and receivers must be located within a 500 meter diameter > circle or within the property limits of the station licensee's > address, whichever is greater. All antennas used by the entrant must > be physically connected by wires to the transmitters and receivers > used by the entrant. Only the entrant's call sign can be used to aid > the entrant's score. All entrants are allowed to use packet and web > clusters. There are no separate entrant categories in the competition; > all participants work as SOAB (Single Operator - All Bands). All > stations at which one performs do all of the operating, logging, and > spotting functions. Only one signal is allowed at any one time. The > operator may change bands at any time. The output power shall not > exceed 100 watts. > EXCHANGE > EPC members should send signal report plus EPC membership number > (example 599 EPC0001). Please make sure that you don't separate > «EPC» from the «Number», and you don't use any characters between. > Please make sure that your EPC number consists of 4 digits. Other > stations should send signal report plus QSO number, starting 001 > (example 599 001). > POINTS > Contacts with EPC members are worth 5 points; contacts with other > stations are worth 1 point. The same stations may be contacted again >
[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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > >> > > > > > > >
[digitalradio] Re: A challenge to RTTY operators!
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 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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: A challenge to RTTY operators!
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. __ Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu
Re: [digitalradio] Re: A challenge to RTTY operators!
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. >> > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: A challenge to RTTY operators!
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > >> > > > > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: A challenge to RTTY operators!
Rick 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! My good friend CO2KG, by his own words, "was fooled" to build it, and he told me that it actually was WORSE than Hamcom itself. > 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." My modem, which never got a case, was quite elaborate (had quite a few parts) and I looked for performance more than any other criteria. It was a mixture of an AN93 and a KAM, depending on the available parts and my own choices. Its post-demodulator low pass filter meant a lot for its performance. I finally settled for 150 Hz as a compromise for RTTY and packet. It actually worked better than my KPC-2 with its AM7910 on receive. I used two bandpass active filters tuned at 2000 / 2200 Hz, with full wave AM detectors, which left very little residual carrier and gave very clean data waveforms. It worked well with Hamcom / Mix / TERMAN93 and BPQ/BPQAX25. Terman93 allowed me to work Pactor at 100 baud quite well after I tweaked my old 386 dot clock to exactly 14.318 MHz (it had a cheapo oscillator that actually was working on 14312 before) to be within the permissible speed error range. Of course, it did not have memory ARQ nor automatic upwards speed switch to 200 baud. I discovered the difference later, when I got my PTC-II. After that, I lost momentumno wonder The post demodulator LPF made copiable signals that the AM7910 could not copy, being open as a barn door as a compromise between 300 and 1200 baud operation. The FSK modulator used a marine band crystal I had at hand, a chain of 4029's as programmable counters and a 4018 with a resistor network to generate a syntethic sinewave after a low pass filter. Mark/space tones were toggled from a serial port line using a 4049 as RS-232 interface. It was a quite instructive hands on experience. Way before that, I wrote my own CW/RTTY program for the C64 using compiled BASIC and the KPC-2 as dumb modem. Compiled BASIC made possible to transmit very clean morse at 50 WPM without having to program in 6510 assembler. 73, Jose, CO2JA __ Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu
Re: [digitalradio] Re: A challenge to RTTY operators!
Brian, You're welcome. Yeah, back then the PC and soundcard technology was in its infancy compared to the technology we use today. I was aware of the RTTY-RITTY capability because Brian had sent me code to test before he released RITTY for sale. Ray and Brian were working together to make sure the softwares would play nicely with each other. And you're spot on about the piracy issue which drove Brian out of the amateur radio software business. That was a huge loss for the ham radio industry in my opinion. There were some "big talkers" that were going to step up to the plate and continue the development of the RTTY by WF1B product after Ray released it into the public domain. As we all know now, a new developer never "developed". It takes a very special person (or team) to create and support a software product with ham radio as the target audience. My hat's off to those who have brought many low cost or freeware products into our hobby over the years. 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN - Original Message - From: Brian A To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 6:24 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: A challenge to RTTY operators! 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 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 >
