Re: [WriteLog] What's wrong with AFSK? was - 5 bit mystery unraveled

[George Johnson <w1zt@comcast.net>]

Time to weigh in with a "minority opinion":

For all the reasons previously described, I would like everyone else to use 
FSK.  I don't want to hear spurs.  And I don't worry about your loss of 
high pitch hearing as long as you tune in my signal properly and print it 
accurately before you call.

I use AFSK with autotune.  I get to use low tones centered on my adjustable 
narrow receive filters. With auto tuning I catch you quickly at the end of 
you CQ... (you do put CQ at the end of your call sequence), and I call you 
on your frequency.  My autotune decoding adjusts my receive and transmit 
between your 165 Hz shifts and 205 Hz shifts accurately every time.  When 
you call me off frequency I hear and decode you quickly in a pileup.  You 
answer me quicker because I call you on frequency in your passband.

And I don't care if your DX spot is 2KHz off because I listen to the 
station before I call him.

I believe that the same care and knowledge in setting up and tuning an FSK 
transmitting station properly requires skill similar to setting up, tuning 
and operating an AFSK station.  Most of the rest is just personal preference.

My 0.02 worth,
73, George .. W1ZT

At 02:47 AM 3/1/2004, you wrote:
> It seems to me that the cognoscenti prefer FSK to AFSK.  I have never seen 
> any reasons for this preference, probably because I haven't looked in the 
> right place.  So, what's the problem with just sending AFSK to the radio, 
> thereby eliminating the need for an AFSK to FSK converter?



_______________________________________________
WriteLog mailing list
WriteLog@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
WriteLog on the web:  http://www.writelog.com/