Joe,
Got it. While I don't have as great of a mind as you do, we are thinking
the same.
FSK is the best mode for technological novices. Part of it's attraction is
that it's use is simple and without any pesky levels to adjust. It's pretty
hard to screw up an FSK implementation. On the other hand, AFSK really
should only be used guys with a sufficient tech background to know how to
do it properly. AFSK in the hands of rookies frequently involves the
problems exactly as you have explained - as is often lamented by the PSK
crowd (for the same reasons).
Got to leave Koh Chen's message for tomorrow. I can't consider any message
of his without a couple of cups of coffee first.
73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Subich, W4TV
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 12:18 AM
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Fw: ARLB006 NTIA: No Objection to Additional Data Modes
on60 Meters
> Maybe what you mean is "AFSK with lesser interfaces is often
> substandard compared to FSK. However, with a fine and dandy Microham
> interface (like the two I have), your AFSK signal can be just as
> sweet and tight as a FSK signal." Right?
No, what I mean is AFSK with individuals who don't know what they're
doing is just plain crap and there are far too many individuals who
either don't know what they're doing or don't care what they're doing.
Couple that with AFC that causes then to walk all over the band and
AFSK is as big a disaster as those g'auwful PACTOR automated QRM
generators.
FSK is bog simple and nearly impossible to screw up in such a way as
to make a mess of the signal. Those who don't know what they're doing
may end up with nothing but a carrier but they don't have 3 KHz or more
of hum modulated harmonics.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 3/30/2012 12:28 AM, Jeff Blaine wrote:
> Joe,
>
> What are you talking about? That statement cannot be factual. Just
> because
> it's easier to generate a lousy signal with AFSK does not logically
> requite
> that an AFSK signal is of lower quality.
>
> I do marketing for my day job. And that got me to thinking. Maybe what
> you
> mean is "AFSK with lesser interfaces is often substandard compared to FSK.
> However, with a fine and dandy Microham interface (like the two I have),
> your AFSK signal can be just as sweet and tight as a FSK signal." Right?
>
> 73/jeff/ac0c
> www.ac0c.com
> alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kok Chen
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 6:20 PM
> To: RTTY Reflector
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Fw: ARLB006 NTIA: No Objection to Additional Data
> Modes
> on60 Meters
>
>
> On Mar 29, 2012, at 4:13 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>
>> AFSK is the RTTY mode for technological novices ... those who do not
>> know how to operate their transceivers in the way the manufacturer
>> designed them to operate.
>
> I would like you to substantiate that statement, Joe.
>
> I haven't transmitted using FSK for years now. There is so many more
> technological advantages to using AFSK.
>
> 73
> Chen, W7AY
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|