What has become of RTTY

[KC7HDE]

I've been using RTTY mode now for about 3 months and have noticed that RTTY is not used much on any other band other than 20m. I'll say during a RTTY contest the other bands are used but mostly 20m, Why isn't RTTY used on 30m or even 10m or maybe 6m?
I'll have to say I have had nothing but fun using this mode and I hate to see RTTY go the way of GTOR.

[w3sy]

My guess is that it's simply losing out to PSK31. Most people have computers now, and even the dedicated TU's are starting to offer PSK31. RTTY is much more prone to QRM and QSB errors than PSK31. Plus, you can't backspace and correct on RTTY like you can on PSK.

I'm not an expert on digital modes, really. So I guess I'd like to know what advantages RTTY might have over PSK31.

Also, anybody still running MFSK16? I tried it a few times, but it's such a pain in the butt to tune in compared with PSK31.

73,
Steve

[W5ATX]

RTTY is a fine mode. But for the power involved it isn't error correcting, and as the above post stated, there are more modern modes that do more better. Each generation comes up with something better it seems. Better being defined as more accurate. Amtor/SITOR was better and was error correcting. Then along came packet which spawned PACTOR which was error correcting AND allowed upper and lower case. And since those modes are not 100% duty cycle, they were easier on our rigs, power supplies, and ultimately, our electric bills.

PSK31 has come along and is once again a 100% duty cycle mode, but it is much narrower bandwidth, much more robust than Murray/Baudot RTTY, and can be run more accurately at lower power. Seems like the best of all worlds. And since it isn't a handshaking mode, it is easier on the T/R relays in the rigs.

So you see, each mode has its own share of plusses and minuses. Overall, RTTY isn't the "best" mode for keyboard to keyboard work anymore. It was and it was used extensively. Now folks use it for the fun of it, but it really has been surpassed. Of course I'm sure there are fellows out there who still have Teletype (that was the name of the brand, not the mode!) machines, and of course for them, RTTY is still the only game in town. I enjoyed my machines when I had them, but time came to move forward, and I did.

Good luck, and enjoy what you enjoy!

73,
Chris

[n3mvf]

I think all the above are good reasons for RTTY vs. other modes such as AMTOR, PSK31 etc. But the fun of this hobby is that you can use them all. There are days where I'll use RTTY just because I have been using PSK31 too long and got bored. Like CW and voice, it's nice to do both and keeps the hobby fun. Hope to see you on RTTY, CW, PSK31 and the rest!

73
Greg
N3MVF

[N5LRZ]

Simple, Digital popularity changed. Other digital modes are now the current mode of choice for most Amateurs.

RArceneaux
N5LRZ

[KB9YFI]

What ever happened to black and white film? #Nobody broadcasts B&W-only programming anymore either. #It must be a conspiracy. #

Best B&W film of the second-half of the 20th century:
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # _Clerks_

# # # # # # #
http://www.viewaskew.com/clerks/

Made in for just under $30,000 bucks or so. #($27,575 to be exact) filmed using a 16mm Arri SR-2 camera and utilized Kodak Plus-X film on black and white. #

There are always some freaks doing things with old out-of-date technology. #Lets make all the new film makers shoot a film in B&W at 5WPM before we let them make color movies. #Sounds like a good idea to keep the rif-raff out. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Relevancy? #Technology presses on. #Either you can welcome the new or put your head in the sand and embrace the old- going down with the Titanic (I will always love you.......................) #I know, wrong movie. #BUT, you get my drift. #

Yeah, like I want a big, huge, clunky tele-type machine in my hamshack. #sha! #RTTY rhymes with what again?

Jim - KB9YFI

[N5LRZ]

RE YFI....

Since you mentioned b&w film, it is strange that it is easier to take a picture in color film than it is to take a good picture in b&w. Example, today we have all these automatic cameras that make everything idiot proof. While in the olden days of SLR and regular film you had to think of composition, light, shadow, etc to make a good picture. B&w was even more of a challenge because you had to think not in color but rather in shades of gray, where are the shadows, etc.

I mention this only because sometimes progress only makes for point and click people rather than advance a skill at something.

Sort like the way I morn the trend to eliminate the code requirements entirely. Code may be useless in daily use but I have seen the magic it does during Field Day.

R Arceneaux
N5LRZ

[KB9YFI]

Sort of like how modern automobiles start themselves without cranking at the front bumper, setting throttle, choke and timing advance. Even shifting is a thing of the past except for switching between Forward, Reverse and Park with one lever and no clutch. What if everyone would have to take their driving test behind the wheel of a model 'A' Ford. That would make things much better-NOT! They would have to close the roads (bands) and sell them off to private interests for use by professional drivers because there would not be enough licensed amateur drivers (hams) to use them. See anything with my logic?

Jim - KB9YFI

[KB1GYQ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RArceneaux @ Aug. 06 2002,00:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...
Since you mentioned b&amp;w film, it is strange that it is easier to take a picture in color film than it is to take a good picture in b&amp;w...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That is because most people shooting color use modern negative film, which has about 7 stops of latitude. Go shoot a roll of old 25 speed kodachrome which has about 1 1/2 stops latitude and tell me how easy it is... It has little to do with color vs. B&amp;W and everything to do with the R&amp;D that has gone into modern color negative film.

If harder is better, then we should require amateur radio operators to encode and decode SSTV in their heads, no automatic equiptment assisting.

[W5ATX]

Yes, the technological improvements in film are a big deal. And many of them have helped B&amp;W film as well. Kodak's T Grain films (Tmax) made a big difference in grain size. And those improvements continue. ISO 400 B&amp;W film of today has the same size grain as ISO 100 of a decade ago. Ilford PanF is just not a needed item anymore. PanF (ISO 50) in 4x5 used to be my film of choice. Unless I WANTED grain. Grain can be an important part of a photo (see the WTC pic on my web page for an example.)

As for colour being easier to use, yes, and there's a reason for that. Aside from the tech issues, processing and printing it is &quot;easier&quot; too. Here's why. Colours are either correct or not. If the colour photo is off on colours, it's just plain wrong. B&amp;W however is subject to interpretation. The same photo made with different light/dark or different contrasts, burned and dodged differently, becomes a totally different image.

Aren't you glad you found something I can chat about besides CW? !!!!!

73,

Chris

[K2WH]

Hey, I thought this post was about RTTY not cameras and film.

Anyway, others said it and I will reiterate it here. PSK and other digital modes have made RTTY basically obsolete. QST had an article about a year ago about RTTY's replacement - PSK31.

Just as SSB made AM obsolete.

Boy is that statement going to get me some brutal comments.

K2WH

[N5LRZ]

RE K2WH

As one day SSB/analog will be made obsolete by the new digital technology. I agree. For everything that is new and shiney today it will also be old and rusty tomorrow.

Just as Windows has made DOS obsolete.

BUT when you were using DOS I seem to remember you had to actually 'Learn' to do something rather than click idiot pictures. And in the learning you began to see the beauty of the system and how you could manipulate it to meet your own needs.

If &quot;new&quot; and &quot;improved&quot; means you must actually have actually learn to something new, to improve your brain. Then by all means bring on the new and improved. But if new and improved means all we do is make pretty icons so the public school dropouts can be cash register people and press pictures of burgers then we are we not going backwards not forwards?

Which is why I always say keep the code requirement in place/at least 10 wpm for General and Extra. Exercise those brain cells.


R Arceneaux
N5LRZ

[KB1GYQ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W5ATX @ Aug. 06 2002,15:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Aside from the tech issues, processing and printing it is &quot;easier&quot; too. #Here's why. #Colours are either correct or not. #If the colour photo is off on colours, it's just plain wrong. #B&amp;W however is subject to interpretation. #The same photo made with different light/dark or different contrasts, burned and dodged differently, becomes a totally different image.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The same things can be done with color.... admittedly there is only one color balance that is correct, but oftimes the recorded colors are not what was intended... and those dang automatic printers don't understand.

Tmax 100 is very fun indeed... fine grain, enough latitude that you don't need fill often, and slow enough to use my old antique mechanical shutter cameras.

But I don't make my own plates, so I guess I'm not a real photographer. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[W5ATX]

Liquid Light is fun stuff. Of course you need a darkroom to use it. Liquid emulsion applied to whatever you like is a fun medium and opens many doors. I wish I still had occassion to use it.

Yes, TMax is good stuff. I personally always preferred Ilford B&amp;W films, but I was a fine grain looney too. Now that most of my work is digital, it's a moot point. And since my divorce in 1996, I've had noplace for a decently usable darkroom. Condo living doesn't get along well with hamming or darkrooms.

And of course you're right. Colour prints don't all look the same. But only one colour for a given item is correct. Contrast in a B&amp;W print however is totally up to the viewer to interpret.

Chris

[KB1GYQ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RArceneaux @ Aug. 06 2002,19:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">RE K2WH

As one day SSB/analog will be made obsolete by the new digital technology. #I agree. #For everything that is new and shiney today it will also be old and rusty tomorrow.

Just as Windows has made DOS obsolete. #

BUT when you were using DOS I seem to remember you had to actually 'Learn' to do something rather than click idiot pictures. #And in the learning you began to see the beauty of the system and how you could manipulate it to meet your own needs.

If &quot;new&quot; and &quot;improved&quot; #means you must actually have actually learn to something new, to improve your brain. #Then by all means bring on the new and improved. #But if new and improved means all we do is make pretty icons so the public school dropouts can be cash register people and press pictures of burgers then we are we not going backwards not forwards?

Which is why I always say keep the code requirement in place/at least 10 wpm for General and Extra. #Exercise those brain cells.


R Arceneaux
N5LRZ[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
1) It is much easier to program for DOS than for win-doze.

2) Simple analog voice modes should never die... Morse is not simple. (see #5)

3) Perhaps we should stop throwing money at an education system that doesn't work.

4) Going down out of the trees and walking on all fours was a bad idea. This &quot;civilization&quot; think is not working, we have become too sophisticated for the survival of the species.

5) (well, part 2 of #2, and partial explaination of #4) -- In many years time, an analog record (yes, the vinyl things) could still be spun and a played with a needle -- but CD's will be a puzzle to figure out. Go look at some of the early TV tapes we have figured out in the last few years. Anything that is complicated for the sake of complexity is asking for trouble.

6) Perhaps even leaving the oceans was a bad idea!

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[kg6huf]

I think it's because most people think it's expensive. You can probabley get something like a rig blaster for about 80-100 dollars and you will be on the air.

[KC7HDE]

The world wide RTTY DX Contest is Sept 28 to 29 from 80m to 10m

For more info go to www.cq-amateur-radio.com/rtty.html
or www.rttyjournal.com/rules/cqww.html

Logs are due 31 OCT 2002

Remember you don't have to particapate to listen in.
Use your rig blaster or just a TNC with HF port and just plug in the phone plug on the TNC in to the ear jack on the RIG and watch the fun.

This requires a dumb terminal or computer conected to TNC or RIG BLASTER.

[n7wsb]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RArceneaux @ Aug. 06 2002,16:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BUT when you were using DOS I seem to remember you had to actually 'Learn' to do something rather than click idiot pictures. #And in the learning you began to see the beauty of the system and how you could manipulate it to meet your own needs.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You should really investigate linux http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif.

I run debian linux on two old Sparcstations - quite literally thrown away. One is my firewall the other is my fileserver (the one pictured top) - there's also lots of ham radio related software for debian linux.

http://taz.maybe.net/webcam/skuld.jpg

[N6YMA]

Learning DOS?
Ha! those were the days - when you could learn everything there was to learn about DOS in just a few months. Some of us even knew the BIOS assembly code inside and out! But honestly, you can do things with a computer today, more easily, faster, and even better, than you ever could with DOS. The good old days look better and better as they recede into the past http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

By the way - how many of you could program an IBM 6xx plug board?

Bob N6YMA