----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger J. Buffington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <digitalradio@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 2:28 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?
> > I was active on the TNC modes, i.e. Amtor, Pactor, RTTY for a lot of > years, roughly 1989-2003 or so. Pactor was quite popular until the > early 2000s, when PSK31 was introduced by Peter Martinez. This ushered > in an age of narrow-frequency soundcard modes, which made ownership of a > TNC unnecessary to work these new modes. HI Roger, I possted this off line nto you because it would seem that the notion of PACTOR and the PK232 is not mainstream enough to keep it in the forum. I only received three responses to my query so that makes the point. I'm sorry, but I have never understood WHY the mode got dropped just because PSK came alive. I see no reason why it can't be as fun to use as legacy RTTY. I'm probably "odd man out" but frankly, after some trial and error testing, I have little interest in MT63, Olivia, Throb, Feld, most of the modes in Patrick's MultiPSK, and the like. I DO like PACTOR, along with DIGI pix and file transfers, DIGI voice, SSTV, RTTY, PSK and it's variants, etc. I know that my PK232 can't work the new modes that have come along but I think "so what?" I remember many enjoyable contacts using my PK232 with really good copy. OK, so it might not be as "fast" as PSK but most hams can't type fast anyway. I type 75 wpm myself but find it not to be an advantage. The important point for me is that I had a $300 box that worked just fine and gave me some interesting operations. Yes, I do know that 'puters can do wonders with DSP and such. However, look at how many hams still use legacy PCs for their station use, yet (if stories are true) they had no compunction in trashing fully functional boxes simply because THEY chose to stop using them like sheep in a flock. That didn't happen with RTTY and it's still a relatively popular "nitch" mode. Heck, I could have incorporated a T/R function, etc into the PK rather than springing for a RIGblaster, for heaven's sake. DUH! It seems like Hams were too quick to chuck $300 or ?? out-of-pocket TNCs away to deliberately make them obsolete for interest's sake, not because of the box as such. That's like throwing a Collins or Drake or Hallicrafters unit in the trash just because it's not quite up to par with the expensive state-of-the-art, mostly foreign produced, whistle 'n bells toys sold today. Personally, I don't care about PTC II, myself. I can't afford the box anyway, yet I see a value for the mode. Ergo, at the least I can have a PACTOR-type ability with the PK232. It DID work before and there's no reason why that box can't provide service today. I've read where the thinking is that most hams won't bother with the PACTOR I if only because of little desire to buy an "expensive" outboard TNC. What about the hams who never threw away their original TNC, the one sitting in the closet per se? It takes little cost to put them back on line, yet they sit, even for lack of use for RTTY at least. Again, I do know it won't measure up to the SCS units but so what? I have a Collins KWM-2A ensemble, Drake ensemble, and an IC-746. They do not come up to the standards of the more expensive products available today but.....so what? They work and they're fun to use. Besides, I don't owe any money on them either <GRIN>. I dunno, IMOH I just think we've misplaced some of our valuable neurons along the way due to shallow and simplistic thinking. Well, I didn't intend this to be a diatribe. I'm probably beating the subject into the ground with no possibility of success in a turnaround. Anyway, I appreciated your comments, the message was a good read. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN
