Re: [digitalradio] Re: signalink sL+
any suggestions then ie rigblasters ect?? MATTHEW A. GREGORY KC2PUA - Original Message From: Peter Frenning [OZ1PIF] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 3:32:48 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: signalink sL+ kh6ty skrev: Skip Signalink is not capable of high speed ARQ. It uses vox, and doesn't have a real PTT with RTS. Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA The real challenge is the advent of the RS232 and Parallel port free PC. Either you have to add an external USB- RS232 converter to your cable-fest - and hope that's supported by your OS of choice (Vista and Linux are the real show stoppers here) - or resort to the VOX solution. A native USB-based solution - HW and/or SW - has not yet emerged as far as I know -- Vy 73 de OZ1PIF/5Q2M, Peter ** CW: Who? Me? You must be joking!! ** email: peter(no-spam-filler) @frenning. dk http://www.frenning .dk/oz1pif. htm Ph. +45 4619 3239 Snailmail: Peter Frenning Ternevej 23 DK-4130 Viby Sj. Denmark * * *
[digitalradio] Interface choices for digital programs
Hi Peter, I have not had hardware RS232C ports for a number of years and have used the USB to RS232 adapters with some success. The main issue is having a driver from your OS for that particular adapter. Older legacy adapters may not have drivers. There are newer adapters that work out the box with Vista ... just plug and play. This is easier than requiring installation of drivers from a disk which may be necessary with older OS's such as WinXP. I tend to look at this technology with public service/emergency use always in the back of my mind and ask the question, Will this thing work if I don't have access to the internet or to special software installations? I recently purchased a Tigertronics SignaLinkUSB interface which has the advantage of ease of installation for portable and emergency use since it gets audio lines and power from the USB port with one cable to the computer and then another cable to the rig. The built in sound card does seem to transmit quite a bit of noise ((sounds like computer leakage) but mine may be defective when you consider that one of the selling points is that it is supposed to have very clean audio. The keying time with the shortest delay adjustment is rated at 30 msec which seems to work OK for asynchronous ARQ. WinXP required some installation of drivers as it found the device. No installation disk was needed. Win98 would need the supplied disk with special drivers. Vista just works. As an experiment, I have been running tests with fldigi and other programs between two computers and two rigs here in the shack to learn more about the ARQ capabilities of the NBEMS suite. - The ICOM 756 Pro 2 uses the very low cost Unified Microsystems SCI-6 interface for audio lines and can key PTT through an optoisolator for programs that do not provide rig control. This requires a USB to RS-232C adapter. Then for rig control, I use the West Mountain RigTalk USB interface. If the program (e.g., fldigi) provides rig control, then you don't need the PTT control on the SCI-6 and avoids the need for a USB port for the adapter. - The ICOM IC-7000, which is intended more for portable deployment, is using the SignaLinkUSB without rig control. Both methods of interfacing seems to work well for the switching speeds we normally use for our multimode digital programs. It would be very difficult to work well with synchronous ARQ modes that have a short window, but anyone developing modern, ham friendly sound card ARQ modes would take that into consideration with todays computers and design accordingly. 73, Rick, KV9U Peter Frenning [OZ1PIF] wrote: The real challenge is the advent of the RS232 and Parallel port free PC. Either you have to add an external USB- RS232 converter to your cable-fest - and hope that's supported by your OS of choice (Vista and Linux are the real show stoppers here) - or resort to the VOX solution. A native USB-based solution - HW and/or SW - has not yet emerged as far as I know
[digitalradio] VOX not for ARQ modes Re: Signalink sL+
Peter OZ1PIF/5Q2M wrote: Either you have to add an external USB- RS232 [...] or resort to the VOX solution. Hi Peter, For ARQ or handshaking modes, VOX is simply way too slow. Signalink will not work. Not an option. Let's crunch the numbers: 1. Really fast VOX with 25milliSecond PTT delay. 2. Add 12mSec to 30mSec transmitter 90% power ramp-up. 3. Total delay = 37mSec to 55mSec! Now, let's take a typical example of a slow ARQ or handshaking mode running at 125 baud (symbols/second) It transmits one symbol every 8 milliseconds. In 37mSec, you have missed 4 symbols. In 55mSec, you have missed 7 symbols. Each time you miss some symbols, this creates more errors that need to be corrected somehow. So, each transmission with a VOX system, you create errors... and each ARQ transmission is trying to fix the previous transmission's error, and the previous errors in the transmissions before that... a vicious cycle :) The other issue is VOX release delay. The longer it is, the more the receive decoder will miss symbols. VOX is totally wrong for ARQ modes. I'm surprised that Signalink doesn't offer any RTS keying, it would be so easy to add to their interface. They are really shooting themselves in the foot with their design choice. A lot of hams are buying these Signalink and other VOX interfaces, and they don't realize what they are missing by doing so. Of course, Signalink doesn't tell them, (the truth would be bad for business). 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA .
Re: [digitalradio] VOX not for ARQ modes
Seems we are reaching the age of the crippled PC. For a desktop there should still be a chance of adding a serial port PCI card. I have never used the parport for PTT so far, and it seems I never will... USB is adequate for most common PC jobs, but not for interfacing radios without some _special_ interface. And of course, managing RTS seems to be the most adequate way of applying PTT to a radio. All other ways (VOX, CAT, etc) seem to introduce too much latency in an ARQ link. VOX may be OK just for keyboarding, which may be the the solution for most users, but hardly is a one size fits all solution. 73, Jose, CO2JA --- expeditionradio wrote: Peter OZ1PIF/5Q2M wrote: Either you have to add an external USB- RS232 [...] or resort to the VOX solution. Hi Peter, For ARQ or handshaking modes, VOX is simply way too slow. Signalink will not work. Not an option. Let's crunch the numbers: 1. Really fast VOX with 25milliSecond PTT delay. 2. Add 12mSec to 30mSec transmitter 90% power ramp-up. 3. Total delay = 37mSec to 55mSec! Now, let's take a typical example of a slow ARQ or handshaking mode running at 125 baud (symbols/second) It transmits one symbol every 8 milliseconds. In 37mSec, you have missed 4 symbols. In 55mSec, you have missed 7 symbols. Each time you miss some symbols, this creates more errors that need to be corrected somehow. So, each transmission with a VOX system, you create errors... and each ARQ transmission is trying to fix the previous transmission's error, and the previous errors in the transmissions before that... a vicious cycle :) The other issue is VOX release delay. The longer it is, the more the receive decoder will miss symbols. VOX is totally wrong for ARQ modes. I'm surprised that Signalink doesn't offer any RTS keying, it would be so easy to add to their interface. They are really shooting themselves in the foot with their design choice. A lot of hams are buying these Signalink and other VOX interfaces, and they don't realize what they are missing by doing so. Of course, Signalink doesn't tell them, (the truth would be bad for business). 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] New Digital Mode Winmor
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2008/08/26/10284/?nc=1
Re: [digitalradio] Re: signalink sL+
Bonnie and all, I use the SignalLink SL-1+ (older version, not USB) for ARQ modes successfully. I use MultiPSK and the ARQ modes I have tested and had working are: ALE 141A, ALE400, Pax/Pax2 and Packet. As there is no sound card Pactor (or AMTOR) ARQ there is no way to see if it works but I think it probably wouldn't and almost definitely not on AMTOR. But with ALE400 you have a better mode than Pactor-1 anyhow. 73 Sholto. expeditionradio wrote: Signalink is not capable of high speed ARQ. It uses vox, and doesn't have a real PTT with RTS. Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, matt gregory [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WONDERING IF ANYBODY IS USING A SIGNALINK SL+ FOR HIGH SPEED ARQ SOFTWARE IE RFSM2400 OR ALIKE ? I'M CURIOUS OF PERFORMANCE BEFORE I CONSIDER PURCHASE MATTHEW A. GREGORY KC2PUA
[digitalradio] Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Sholto Fisher wrote: Bonnie and all, I use the SignalLink SL-1+ (older version, not USB) for ARQ modes successfully. I use MultiPSK and the ARQ modes I have tested and had working are: ALE 141A, ALE400, Pax/Pax2 and Packet. Hi Sholto, The fact that you were able to make contacts with ARQ using Signalink is not an indicator that it is good for ARQ. In ALE, with the Signalink, you would absolutely not be transmitting the first group of symbols of each transmission. The Signalink timing just isn't sufficient to do the job. The errors in your transmission may have been corrected by FEC or ARQ. But, your empirical evidence of success is more an indicator of the good redundancy and Forward Error Correction of the robust mode, rather than success for the Signalink :) 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA .
Re: [digitalradio] Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Hi Bonny, so what's better instead of signalink sl1+/ usb 73, Jürgen DG8FDD - Original Message - From: expeditionradio To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 6:51 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes Sholto Fisher wrote: Bonnie and all, I use the SignalLink SL-1+ (older version, not USB) for ARQ modes successfully. I use MultiPSK and the ARQ modes I have tested and had working are: ALE 141A, ALE400, Pax/Pax2 and Packet. Hi Sholto, The fact that you were able to make contacts with ARQ using Signalink is not an indicator that it is good for ARQ. In ALE, with the Signalink, you would absolutely not be transmitting the first group of symbols of each transmission. The Signalink timing just isn't sufficient to do the job. The errors in your transmission may have been corrected by FEC or ARQ. But, your empirical evidence of success is more an indicator of the good redundancy and Forward Error Correction of the robust mode, rather than success for the Signalink :) 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA .
Re: [digitalradio] Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Hi Bonnie, The SL-1+ has a TX delay of 28ms on its fast setting. I first tried using direct PTT for ALE400 FAE (like I do for Pactor) but found no noticeable difference in performance versus the SL-1+ VOX PTT. Does it really make that much difference? 73 Sholto. expeditionradio wrote: Sholto Fisher wrote: Bonnie and all, I use the SignalLink SL-1+ (older version, not USB) for ARQ modes successfully. I use MultiPSK and the ARQ modes I have tested and had working are: ALE 141A, ALE400, Pax/Pax2 and Packet. Hi Sholto, The fact that you were able to make contacts with ARQ using Signalink is not an indicator that it is good for ARQ. In ALE, with the Signalink, you would absolutely not be transmitting the first group of symbols of each transmission. The Signalink timing just isn't sufficient to do the job. The errors in your transmission may have been corrected by FEC or ARQ. But, your empirical evidence of success is more an indicator of the good redundancy and Forward Error Correction of the robust mode, rather than success for the Signalink :) 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA .
Re: [digitalradio] Re: signalink sL+
I agree completely with Sholto. As I mentioned previously, the asynchronous ARQ modes don't have any problem with reasonable speed switching time. In fact, this is one of the reasons for the move to develop more ham friendly ARQ modes and away from the legacy hardware modes that were impractical to implement on a computer due to the tight time frame. My preference is to key via rig control, since you only need one COM port to do this. In order to have both rig control and PTT keying would require two separate COM ports. It will be interesting as we hear more about the new protocol that Winlink2000 is developing for sound card use and their claim that it will compete favorably with Pactor modes. Currently, FAE400 is the best asynchronous ARQ sound card implementation we have for the text data portions of the bands and can still work deep into the noise. We also have the NBEMS suite with the fldiig and flarq programs providing the synergy to ARQ many of the commonly used modes. A while back I contacted Tigertronics and asked them about providing hardware PTT control if they but they felt that they did not want to move in that direction since they specifically did not want to use a COM port and wanted to keep their interface design as simple as possible to work with most any possible rig and software program. 73, Rick, KV9U Sholto Fisher wrote: Bonnie and all, I use the SignalLink SL-1+ (older version, not USB) for ARQ modes successfully. I use MultiPSK and the ARQ modes I have tested and had working are: ALE 141A, ALE400, Pax/Pax2 and Packet. As there is no sound card Pactor (or AMTOR) ARQ there is no way to see if it works but I think it probably wouldn't and almost definitely not on AMTOR. But with ALE400 you have a better mode than Pactor-1 anyhow. 73 Sholto.
RE: [digitalradio] New Digital Mode Winmor
Looks interesting. I wonder if enough information will be made available to allow duplicating the modem under other operating systems and platforms. Hopefully, the development team is actually doing parallel development for use in *nix environments. -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Maguire Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 9:05 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] New Digital Mode Winmor http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2008/08/26/10284/?nc=1
Re: [digitalradio] New Digital Mode Winmor
I really hope the code or at least a DLL is made available. Anything to get rid of PACTOR III has my vote (I do not like the licencing issues involved). Simon Brown, HB9DRV www.ham-radio-deluxe.com - Original Message - From: Bob Donnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Looks interesting. I wonder if enough information will be made available to allow duplicating the modem under other operating systems and platforms. Hopefully, the development team is actually doing parallel development for use in *nix environments.
[digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Sholto Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Bonnie, Does it really make that much difference? 73 Sholto. Yes, it really does make a difference :) Please see my previous explanation where I detailed the exact number of symbols that are deleted by Signalink at the beginning of every time you transmit. Then, there are the receive signals that may be deleted by Signalink due to PTT release delay. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Bonnie what do you suggest using with out spend a whole lot i was also looking at the rigblaster plug and play usb MATTHEW A. GREGORY KC2PUA - Original Message From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:47:27 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Sholto Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Bonnie, Does it really make that much difference? 73 Sholto. Yes, it really does make a difference :) Please see my previous explanation where I detailed the exact number of symbols that are deleted by Signalink at the beginning of every time you transmit. Then, there are the receive signals that may be deleted by Signalink due to PTT release delay. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Sorry to harp on about this but ALE400 has a baud rate of 50 (20ms length) and the VOX PTT is 28ms plus allowing for say a 12ms delay from a modern rig that is only 40ms total delay on transmit, just 2 symbols. From MultiPSK's help file: In ALE400 it is transmitted 28 symbols, alternately on the lowest frequency and then on the highest frequency, so for a duration of about 0.56 second (28/50 s). This is aimed to permit the symbol synchronization just before the frame reception. I'm no expert (so forgive me if I am way off base on this) but even allowing for 2 missed symbols that still leaves 26 for synchronization before receiving the FAE frame. I can't believe it makes any significant difference at least for ALE400 FAE. 73 Sholto. expeditionradio wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Sholto Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Bonnie, Does it really make that much difference? 73 Sholto. Yes, it really does make a difference :) Please see my previous explanation where I detailed the exact number of symbols that are deleted by Signalink at the beginning of every time you transmit. Then, there are the receive signals that may be deleted by Signalink due to PTT release delay. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
matt gregory wrote: Bonnie what do you suggest using with out spend a whole lot i was also looking at the rigblaster plug and play usb MATTHEW A. GREGORY KC2PUA Hi Matthew, The Rigblaster Plug N Play is an excellent choice. Almost any of the interfaces that include PTT using hardware RTS will do fine for ARQ modes. Beware of interfaces that say they don't need any configuration or use VOX. Also, beware of the ones with cheap miniature soundcards inside them. For fast digital modes a soundcard with native 48kHz sampling is best. Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Sholto Fisher wrote: I can't believe it makes any significant difference at least for ALE400 FAE. Hi Sholto, Whether you believe it or not, that's up to you. But the math doesn't lie, and neither does the oscilloscope. IMHO, any interface that chops off part of your transmission, for whatever mode, should be returned to the manufacturer for refund :) 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] VOX not for ARQ modes
There is one exception to the rule. Pskmail arq works perfectly with vox. Just a matter of optimizing the protocol to fit common hardware instead of the reverse... The trick (thanks K9PS) is to send up to 512 bytes of data in a frame and allow some more time for the switchovers. 73, Rein PA0R -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: 26.08.08 17:21:26 An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Betreff: Re: [digitalradio] VOX not for ARQ modes Seems we are reaching the age of the crippled PC. For a desktop there should still be a chance of adding a serial port PCI card. I have never used the parport for PTT so far, and it seems I never will... USB is adequate for most common PC jobs, but not for interfacing radios without some _special_ interface. And of course, managing RTS seems to be the most adequate way of applying PTT to a radio. All other ways (VOX, CAT, etc) seem to introduce too much latency in an ARQ link. VOX may be OK just for keyboarding, which may be the the solution for most users, but hardly is a one size fits all solution. 73, Jose, CO2JA --- expeditionradio wrote: Peter OZ1PIF/5Q2M wrote: Either you have to add an external USB- RS232 [...] or resort to the VOX solution. Hi Peter, For ARQ or handshaking modes, VOX is simply way too slow. Signalink will not work. Not an option. Let's crunch the numbers: 1. Really fast VOX with 25milliSecond PTT delay. 2. Add 12mSec to 30mSec transmitter 90% power ramp-up. 3. Total delay = 37mSec to 55mSec! Now, let's take a typical example of a slow ARQ or handshaking mode running at 125 baud (symbols/second) It transmits one symbol every 8 milliseconds. In 37mSec, you have missed 4 symbols. In 55mSec, you have missed 7 symbols. Each time you miss some symbols, this creates more errors that need to be corrected somehow. So, each transmission with a VOX system, you create errors... and each ARQ transmission is trying to fix the previous transmission's error, and the previous errors in the transmissions before that... a vicious cycle :) The other issue is VOX release delay. The longer it is, the more the receive decoder will miss symbols. VOX is totally wrong for ARQ modes. I'm surprised that Signalink doesn't offer any RTS keying, it would be so easy to add to their interface. They are really shooting themselves in the foot with their design choice. A lot of hams are buying these Signalink and other VOX interfaces, and they don't realize what they are missing by doing so. Of course, Signalink doesn't tell them, (the truth would be bad for business). 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://pa0r.blogspirit.com Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] signalink sL+
I have not used a SignalLink interface. I have used VOX to operate RFSM2400, which worked quite well after I dropped the VOX delay to .5 sec. There is a sync pulse at the beginning of the RFSM burst that allows this to work well. The main reason I don't use VOX for data is because I want to avoid incidental keying of the transmitter. This may not be an issue with the SignalLink. The modes that don't work well are most likely the ones that switch back and forth quickly, like Amtor and Pactor. (Not sure how quickly ALE switches.) You really need the high dollar SCS modem for most Pactor work anyway. We need to get away from those fast-switching modes anyway. They are harder on the equipment. The ARQ modes in NBEMS are not fast switching. Personally I use a Rigblaster but I still have some serial ports on my ham computer. Howard K5HB - Original Message From: matt gregory [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 7:54:50 PM Subject: [digitalradio] signalink sL+ WONDERING IF ANYBODY IS USING A SIGNALINK SL+ FOR HIGH SPEED ARQ SOFTWARE IE RFSM2400 OR ALIKE ? I'M CURIOUS OF PERFORMANCE BEFORE I CONSIDER PURCHASE MATTHEW A. GREGORY KC2PUA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Hello to all, About slow asynchronous ARQ modes as ARQ FAE, Pax, Pax2 and even Packet there is no much problem to have several dozens of ms in delay. This because due to sound card buffers, the obligation to work even with slow computers, and due to slow modulation, it is introduced big margins (several hundreds of ms or even seconds depending of the mode or the number of repeaters used in Pax, for example). So this delay is not critical. And as Rick said, it is a positive point about asynchronous ARQ modes which are flexible. Moreover they are economical as they transmitted only when requested and not everytime (transmitting padding characters). However, for quick ARQ modes (as RFSM2400 or 110A) it is certainly an other story, as the margins might be very low...and, moreover, I'm not very sure that the VOX delay is really constant... It might depend on a filter associated with a threshold. The delay with which the threshold will be switched will depend on the sound level at the input. The best is the direct switching from the serial port, then the Cat system and afterwards the VOX system. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:26 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes Sholto Fisher wrote: I can't believe it makes any significant difference at least for ALE400 FAE. Hi Sholto, Whether you believe it or not, that's up to you. But the math doesn't lie, and neither does the oscilloscope. IMHO, any interface that chops off part of your transmission, for whatever mode, should be returned to the manufacturer for refund :) 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links
[digitalradio] New Member
Hi all, I've just joined a few weeks ago and this is my first posting to the egroup. I'm new to HF digital but have been using packet on VHF and UHF. I'm currently trying out Ham Radio Deluxe (will also be using hamscope). rgds to all, ZL2UQU
[digitalradio] Path Simulations for PAX / HF Packet
Hello Tony, RR for all. If you have some spare time, some modes would be interesting to be tested (with Multipsk): - PSK10, - PSKAM10, - ARQ FAE in ALE400 (simply with Unproto APRS frames, as the ARQ memory can be used only when connected), - ALE AMD, DTM and DBM (DBM is the best ALE sub-mode), - Packet 110 bauds (with Unproto frames) And perhaps: - RS ID - Video ID TKS! 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Tony [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:22 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Path Simulations for PAX / HF Packet Patrick, Hello Tony, Glad you did measures for Pax. My pleasure; thanks for adding the mode to Multipsk! My figures are the following: Lowest S/N : - 10 dB for PAX and - 7 dB for PAX2. It corresponds to a Gaussian noise without any ionospheric distortion (your first case. Just tested PAX and PAX2 again for the lowest S/N (Gaussian noise only) and came up with -11db for PAX and -7db for PAX2. Very close. Normally there is a 3 dB difference between these 2 modes as there are strictly the same except that Pax2 is twice quicker than Pax. Understand Patrick. Ionospheric distortion seems to widen the gap between the two with PAX coming out ahead by 5db or so. I used the 100% decode criteria so that may be the difference. The PAX2 mode did not print at all (regardless of SNR) with the two most disturbing ionospheric simulations. Note: Pax and Pax2 modulations are clones of Olivia, let's say very close on modulation to Contestia. No wonder why they work so well! For Pax and Packet there is no ARQ memory (contrary to ARQ FAE), so the minimum S/N in connected mode would be the same as in Unproto. Thanks for clarifying that. Note: it could be theoritically possible to implement ARQ memory in Pax and Packet (which would give a sort of FEC (repetition)coding to these modes), but it would need time... Interesting. Thanks Patrick. Let me know if I can help with any mode simulations you haven't tried yet. Tony, K2MO Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: signalink sL+
Off list. Don't want to spill gasoline on the fire. Does your Signalink use a COM port at all? My interface is homebrew, and uses one COM port to derive PTT from. Packet is tolerant of losing part of the flag bits, maybe pactor too, but AMTOR does not tolerate delays at all. It has been years that I do not make an AMTOR QSO. 73, Jose, CO2JA Sholto Fisher wrote: Bonnie and all, I use the SignalLink SL-1+ (older version, not USB) for ARQ modes successfully. I use MultiPSK and the ARQ modes I have tested and had working are: ALE 141A, ALE400, Pax/Pax2 and Packet. As there is no sound card Pactor (or AMTOR) ARQ there is no way to see if it works but I think it probably wouldn't and almost definitely not on AMTOR. But with ALE400 you have a better mode than Pactor-1 anyhow. 73 Sholto.
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Or the protocol implementers need to recognize the need to generate a tone to trigger the VOX. This would be analogous to the delay they provide for transmitter keying. - 73 - Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of expeditionradio Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:26 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes Sholto Fisher wrote: I can't believe it makes any significant difference at least for ALE400 FAE. Hi Sholto, Whether you believe it or not, that's up to you. But the math doesn't lie, and neither does the oscilloscope. IMHO, any interface that chops off part of your transmission, for whatever mode, should be returned to the manufacturer for refund :) 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] New Digital Mode Winmor
I agree with Simon. The questions is HOW MUCH will it cost ? On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Simon Brown (KNS) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I really hope the code or at least a DLL is made available. Anything to get rid of PACTOR III has my vote (I do not like the licencing issues involved). Simon Brown, HB9DRV www.ham-radio-deluxe.com - Original Message - From: Bob Donnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Looks interesting. I wonder if enough information will be made available to allow duplicating the modem under other operating systems and platforms. Hopefully, the development team is actually doing parallel development for use in *nix environments. -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
Re: [digitalradio] New Digital Mode Winmor
Licensing helps pay for all that RD (research and development) that could very well run into the millions. doing otherwise would not be good for any business. At 12:37 PM 8/26/2008, you wrote: I really hope the code or at least a DLL is made available. Anything to get rid of PACTOR III has my vote (I do not like the licencing issues involved).
Re: [digitalradio] Path Simulations for PAX / HF Packet
Patrick, If you have some spare time, some modes would be interesting to be tested (with Multipsk): PSK10, PSKAM10 No problem. I'll send the results in a day or two. Tony, K2MO Hello Tony, RR for all. If you have some spare time, some modes would be interesting to be tested (with Multipsk): - PSK10, - PSKAM10, - ARQ FAE in ALE400 (simply with Unproto APRS frames, as the ARQ memory can be used only when connected), - ALE AMD, DTM and DBM (DBM is the best ALE sub-mode), - Packet 110 bauds (with Unproto frames) And perhaps: - RS ID - Video ID TKS! 73 Patrick
[digitalradio] Re: New digital mode interface due for release 25/08/08
ARRL article: New HF Digital Protocol to Debut at DCC WINMOR, an HF digital protocol designed for use with the Winlink 2000 network, will be unveiled at the upcoming ARRL/TAPR Digital Communications Conference in Chicago, September 26-28. [see screen shot] http://www.arrl.org/news/images/nms/fullsized/373.gif http://www.arrl.org/news/images/nms/fullsized/373.gif According to developer Rick Muething, KN6KB, WINMOR will effectively eliminate the need for external PACTOR hardware. This new protocol is implemented through a Windows application that uses a computer sound card for all the analog-to-digital conversion. It provides error-free ARQ transfers within 200, 500 or 2000 Hz bandwidths, Muething said. In terms of throughput, Muething said that the 200-Hz WINMOR mode appears to equal the performance of PACTOR I. In WINMOR's 2000 Hz mode, its performance rivals PACTOR III. WINMOR is a work in progress, Muething said. We won't be pulling the wraps off a finished application at the conference. We're close, though. I'd like to see on-air testing in 3 to 6 months. DCC Conference information and registration is available online http://www.tapr.org/dcc http://www.tapr.org/dcc or by telephone at 972-671-8277. Rick Muething's presentation paper, WINMOR. . . A Sound Card ARQ Mode for Winlink HF Digital Messaging, is included in the conference proceedings. http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2008/08/26/10284/?nc=1 http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2008/08/26/10284/?nc=1
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Recollection is that the SignalLink has its own internal VOX circuit, so can be independent of the VOX settings of the rig - except if the user makes the mistake of turning VOX on in their rig, and the rig has a longer delay time than the SignalLink does - which is likely. Either way, I cringed when I heard that the SignalLink uses VOX, with no direct control option. But hey, I'm one of those that has VHF/UHF radios and TNC's that are fast enough to reliably work 1200 baud packet with 40 ms of TXDelay. 73, Bob, KD7NM Operating in the land where one can send a ack packet while other's slow radios are still locking their PLL's up... -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Lindecker Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:40 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes Hello to all, About slow asynchronous ARQ modes as ARQ FAE, Pax, Pax2 and even Packet there is no much problem to have several dozens of ms in delay. This because due to sound card buffers, the obligation to work even with slow computers, and due to slow modulation, it is introduced big margins (several hundreds of ms or even seconds depending of the mode or the number of repeaters used in Pax, for example). So this delay is not critical. And as Rick said, it is a positive point about asynchronous ARQ modes which are flexible. Moreover they are economical as they transmitted only when requested and not everytime (transmitting padding characters). However, for quick ARQ modes (as RFSM2400 or 110A) it is certainly an other story, as the margins might be very low...and, moreover, I'm not very sure that the VOX delay is really constant... It might depend on a filter associated with a threshold. The delay with which the threshold will be switched will depend on the sound level at the input. The best is the direct switching from the serial port, then the Cat system and afterwards the VOX system. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:26 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes Sholto Fisher wrote: I can't believe it makes any significant difference at least for ALE400 FAE. Hi Sholto, Whether you believe it or not, that's up to you. But the math doesn't lie, and neither does the oscilloscope. IMHO, any interface that chops off part of your transmission, for whatever mode, should be returned to the manufacturer for refund :) 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [digitalradio] Re: New digital mode interface due for release 25/08/08
If WINMOR includes a descendant of SCAMP's busy frequency detector, this is great news. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jon Maguire Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:47 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New digital mode interface due for release 25/08/08 ARRL article: New HF Digital Protocol to Debut at DCC WINMOR, an HF digital protocol designed for use with the Winlink 2000 network, will be unveiled at the upcoming ARRL/TAPR Digital Communications Conference in Chicago, September 26-28. [see screen shot] http://www.arrl.org/news/images/nms/fullsized/373.gif According to developer Rick Muething, KN6KB, WINMOR will effectively eliminate the need for external PACTOR hardware. This new protocol is implemented through a Windows application that uses a computer sound card for all the analog-to-digital conversion. It provides error-free ARQ transfers within 200, 500 or 2000 Hz bandwidths, Muething said. In terms of throughput, Muething said that the 200-Hz WINMOR mode appears to equal the performance of PACTOR I. In WINMOR's 2000 Hz mode, its performance rivals PACTOR III. WINMOR is a work in progress, Muething said. We won't be pulling the wraps off a finished application at the conference. We're close, though. I'd like to see on-air testing in 3 to 6 months. DCC Conference information and registration is available online http://www.tapr.org/dcc or by telephone at 972-671-8277. Rick Muething's presentation paper, WINMOR. . . A Sound Card ARQ Mode for Winlink HF Digital Messaging, is included in the conference proceedings. http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2008/08/26/10284/?nc=1
RE: [digitalradio] New Digital Mode Winmor
If the protocol is used on ham frequencies it must be documented. I think for this mode a number of people would raise a stink if it is not documented sufficiently to implement. - 73 - Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Becker, WØJAB Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 6:25 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New Digital Mode Winmor Licensing helps pay for all that RD (research and development) that could very well run into the millions. doing otherwise would not be good for any business. At 12:37 PM 8/26/2008, you wrote: I really hope the code or at least a DLL is made available. Anything to get rid of PACTOR III has my vote (I do not like the licencing issues involved). Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links
[digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
IMHO, it is ridiculous to suggest that the protocol implementers should change the protocol to add overhead to accept cheapo bogus hardware. In many cases, the excellent worldwide standards have already been set, and the proliferation of sub-standard interfaces on the market is not going to affect the protocols, like the tail wagging the dog. There simply is no need to purchase a poorly designed bogus interface that depends on VOX, that chops off the beginning of each transmission or received signal. It is up to operators themselves to select a proper interface that conforms to the standard of digital protocols they intend to operate. The trend is for more ARQ protocols being used in ham radio. There are many excellent interfaces on the market that function properly. Why bother with the junk ones? It is also very easy to homebrew an interface. I've built several of them in a few hours of work, and put the plans for them on the web: http://hflink.com/interface/ Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA Rud Merriam k5rud wrote: Or the protocol implementers need to recognize the need to generate a tone to trigger the VOX. This would be analogous to the delay they provide for transmitter keying.
[digitalradio] TS480 + SL/USB + PK232 for Pactor + doze laptop
How does one hook up a PK232 to the laptop by USB and to the txcvr without disconnecting the Soundcard interface (SL/USB)? And, what software is used for Pactor I ? I am using MixW for all other modes. I just cannot get the assembly relationship of these 4 items in my mind without disconnecting the Signalink. I think that it is going to require a Y cable into the data mini din on the txcvr. That would allow sharing that port. I have the serial port occupied now with a Y for the radio's remote port with the other cable going into the Ameritron ARI-500 which allows auto bandswitching for the ALS-600 amp and the MFJ 998 auto tuner. Needless to say, all of the ports on the TS480 are getting used up pretty quickly. The PK232 is a completely updated TNC with low power, sound card, USB, etc, etc. It is equivalent to the new PK232/PSK. http://www.timewave.com/support/PK-232/PK232PSK.html I just wish that the Signalink and MixW would handle Pactor-I sending as well as full receiving. Instead, the MixW does a half hearted receive of Pactor I only isfai have figured it out. sigh... HELP??? thanks chas k5dam
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Bluntly, you are ignoring the reality of trends in computer hardware. Further, my suggestion does not impact any protocol. The protocols require no changes. What could be changed is the way a protocol __implementation__ signals that it ready to transmit. A simple check box on the screen that defines the radio interface and sending an audio tone, possibly sub audible, is all that needs to change. - 73 - Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net -Original Message- From: expeditionradio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 11:17 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes IMHO, it is ridiculous to suggest that the protocol implementers should change the protocol to add overhead to accept cheapo bogus hardware. In many cases, the excellent worldwide standards have already been set, and the proliferation of sub-standard interfaces on the market is not going to affect the protocols, like the tail wagging the dog. There simply is no need to purchase a poorly designed bogus interface that depends on VOX, that chops off the beginning of each transmission or received signal. It is up to operators themselves to select a proper interface that conforms to the standard of digital protocols they intend to operate. The trend is for more ARQ protocols being used in ham radio. There are many excellent interfaces on the market that function properly. Why bother with the junk ones? It is also very easy to homebrew an interface. I've built several of them in a few hours of work, and put the plans for them on the web: http://hflink.com/interface/ Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA Rud Merriam k5rud wrote: Or the protocol implementers need to recognize the need to generate a tone to trigger the VOX. This would be analogous to the delay they provide for transmitter keying. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links
