@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] Im
Auftrag von Wes Cosand
Gesendet: Samstag, 23. Januar 2010 02:00
An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: Re: [digitalradio] Comparison of RTTY software sensitivity - New
tests
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Patrick Lindecker wrote
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Patrick Lindecker wrote:
>
>
> Hello Wes,
>
> I saw the test file. It is nice except the long suite of figures, which
> could be a cause of possible systematic failure (with many errors following
> a first error) . Better would be to keep only the call signs which
] Comparison of RTTY software sensitivity - New
tests
Patrick, thank you for your kind note.
I discovered, as you have known for a long time, that testing RTTY is not
easy because of random figures/letters shifts. As you said, a single
inappropriate shift can mess up a lot of characters! That
Patrick, thank you for your kind note.
I discovered, as you have known for a long time, that testing RTTY is not
easy because of random figures/letters shifts. As you said, a single
inappropriate shift can mess up a lot of characters! That makes the
statistics difficult.
My test text file is at
)
at about -5.5 dB.
73
Patrick
- Original Message -
From: Wes Cosand
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:05 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Comparison of RTTY software sensitivity
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Dave AA6YQ
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Wes.
>
>
>
> WinWarbler uses MMTTY as its RTTY engine; thus MMTTY can be configured to
> achieve the same performance as that shown for WinWarbler.
>
Yes, I certainly did not mean to construct a test to show MMTTY at a
disadvantage.
: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 7:02 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Comparison of RTTY software sensitivity
Recently during a QSO a ham said the software I was using was not very
sensitive. I decided I needed to collect some data to make an informed
decision about which
> Thanks for sharing your interesting experiment. It is somewhat puzzling
> that you convert the 8KHz audio to 11025Hz and pipe it to the programs
> via Virtual cable, which may involve another two conversions (e.g. to
> 44.1KHz and from that to whatever rate the program samples at, depending
> on
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:01:32 -0500, Wes Cosand
> said:
> Recently during a QSO a ham said the software I was using was not very
> sensitive. I decided I needed to collect some data to make an informed
> decision about which software I should be using. I ran several of the RTTY
> soft
Recently during a QSO a ham said the software I was using was not very
sensitive. I decided I needed to collect some data to make an informed
decision about which software I should be using. I ran several of the RTTY
software packages through the AWGN function of PathSim and used RttyCompare
to c
10 matches
Mail list logo
