I agree simply do the math hi.
I wanted really to see if there are anything I can't think of, wrong
with his approach. He feels the only advantage to FSK was the readout,
if so his solution is fine for him...
Bill
On 2/6/2012 4:21 PM, Al Kozakiewicz wrote:
> I'm not 100% sure I'm following the point, but if the point is that you can
> decide to decode something other than 2125/2295 when running AFSK in order to
> make the math for the conversion to the "FSK frequency" simple to do in your
> head, why not? When I was first trying RTTY and running AFSK I never ran the
> standard part because 2295 Hz was usually just outside my SSB filter passband.
>
> If you're using AFSK, you will probably eventually want to use a narrow SSB
> filter whose upper limit will end up being lower than 2kHz anyway, forcing
> you to change to a different tone pair. From a technical standpoint, it
> doesn;t much matter at all what tone pair you choose as long as the
> separation is 170 Hz.
>
> Al
> AB2ZY
>
> ________________________________________
> From: rtty-bounces@contesting.com [rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Bill [bmarx@bellsouth.net]
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 3:44 PM
> To: RTTY reflector
> Subject: [RTTY] FSK Readouts vs AFSK
>
> Someone sent me this comment when the subject of FSK readouts came up.
> Any thoughts on his plan?
>
> "You don't have to pick the 2.1 kHz offsets for tones, I use the
> 915/1085 (that is, 1 kHz +/- 85 Hz) to make the spotting arithmetic easy
> (about 1 kHz)."
>
> Bill Marx W2CQ
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|