it is done. Most of the
programs will automatically detect an analog mode won't they? The
digital SSTV modes seem to be quite automatic since it detects many
parameters including callsigns.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Jeff Moore wrote:
Rick,
My interests are similar to yours, ie, effective emergency comms
file (2 pages) of the procedures:
http://www.iaru-r1.org/GlobalsetMay08Rules.pdf
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
-Anyone have any thoughts on how we might use Skip/Dave's NBEMS for
this test ?
Rick, any interest in chairing efforts of Digitalradio or your HFDEC
group and seeing if we
with the microwave
frequencies. The only ham use these bands seem to be for are contesting
a few times a year. It seems to me that we only require a few
frequencies for experimentation and satellite use, above 1.2 GHz.
73,
Rick, KV9U
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gents,
I agree - isn't the 30m ham
is on, or check to
see if the automatic Pactor or Packet stations are on higher up. That
pretty well tells you if the band is open.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Danny Douglas wrote:
I am always amazed at the people who say I never call CQ My first
question is alwayWHY?. It takes two to tango!
Time
of these stations is a long time ham and he explained that they will not
have to run as much power with digital since signals seem to go farther
than analog. It will be interesting.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Danny Douglas wrote:
Frankly, I expected the government to give us back the channel 1 TV
frequency
If this is used by very many hams, then how does this impact the PropNet
beacons?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
I just want to advise people that the PSK Reporter feature within
DM780 that I mentioned a few months ago, has continued to evolve.
The latest releases of DM780 have some
But isn't the net effect about the same, or maybe even better since you
may get many more hits?
What is it the PropNet does now that is different, better, etc.?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Simon Brown wrote:
This is just detecting callsigns in on-air QSO's and receiving reports from
new logbook entries
packet up
high.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Sholto Fisher wrote:
Hi Guys,
What is the actual objection? is it you worry there will be some rule
change in the future to allow WARC band contesting? You know there are
other groups who promote the use of 30m for events too (and have done so
for some
?
If you have a dummy load, you could see if the problem still exists when
transmitting into it. Otherwise, do you notice increasing distortion
with increasing RF output power? Do different antennas vary the problem?
Different bands vary the problem?
73,
Rick, KV9U
KB1NAL wrote:
_SUBJECT_
Radio Shack) to connect to ICOM rigs that have the 8 pin DIN ACC1.
The pin outs have the same position and the keyway is the same. Just
fewer pins, but it just happens that you need only 4 of the 5 pins and
they just happen to be the ones on the 5 pin DIN:)
73,
Rick, KV9U
Tony wrote:
All
What is the call sign of this beacon?
Rick N6RK
Mark Thompson wrote:
SNOX V 10 MHz Amateur Radio Balloon Flight
The Spirit of Knoxville V (SNOX V) balloon will launch Sunday 6th April at
UTC, from Knoxville, TN in an attempt to cross the Atlantic.
It will carry Amateur Radio beacons
and the other set up for MFSK16 or whatever. Then if I found something
interesting, I could choose which software to use for transmitting.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
Does anyone here have any creative ideas for using multiple rigs on
digital modes with one PC?
I have three HF
disparate parts have to be rewritten and optimized. An
OS needs the synergy of all the parts working simultaneously in order
for it to work successfully.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Howard Brown wrote:
How about a free open source Windows replacement?
http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html
ReactOS http
a very nice program.
More information available at:
http://www.airlinkexpress.org/
73,
Rick, KV9U
rojomn wrote:
The only real issue I see frequently is for users of MMTTY and PsKcore
that want to use other than the default sound card. In Vista they
cannot. Other than that I see
to contact the owner and ask what the current status is. Maybe he
would be willing to make you an owner or at least moderator?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Howard Brown wrote:
Yes, linuxham is pretty active but seems to be dedicated to supporting
the W1HKJ software. Excellent software but the site
that it is likely to be many years beyond what MS is claiming for a
Windows 7 target date. Consider that something around 100,000,000 Vista
machines have been sold so far.
73,
Rick, KV9U
AA0OI wrote:
Hi Rick:
The US government has now informed MS that they WILL continue to
support XP
of
the screen, particularly the font rendering. It is better than XP and
much better than Linux. Some may not care that much about this issue if
they use the computer for casual use, but for heavy computer use, it may
be quite welcome.
73,
Rick, KV9U
nathan wrote:
Hi
Talk about hitting the nail
might ask outselves is whether a given OS does the
things we want it to do and not do the things we don't want it to do?
No OS can fulfill those requirements, but at this time MS Windows does
it the best for much of ham radio needs.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Howard Brown wrote:
Did you read it? Does
software in
certain categories.
73,
Rick, KV9U
wa0elm wrote:
I'm looking at purchasing a new laptop, and I can't find anything that
doesn't come with Vista. Is anyone having success running digital
software (e.g. MultiPSK and/or MMTTY) with Vista? Last I heard, most
digital software
Argonaut V which has TCXO, but not that that accuracy. I did not
find any problem in using it, but I suspect that this mostly becomes an
issue if you are in an environment with changing ambient temperatures,
such as outside, field day, emergency use, etc.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Announce your digital
this antenna is not in the ARRL Antenna Book. Has anyone else worked
with this design on HF or VHF?
73,
Rick, KV9U
and up.
As Andy points out, there are times when the ARQ text digital modes
don't work at all, but with FAE400 this seems like much less of a
problem considering that it may be able to perform better than PSK31
without ARQ.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
NBEMS is the software package
to the way that PSKmail does this? If so, why
can't this be ported over to MS OS? This would give us an additional
tool for emergencies as well as some practical e-mail capability that is
very narrow mode.
73,
Rick, KV9U
just prefers
it his way.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
After reading this thread with great intrust I still fail to see
the difference between it and what has been done with
the Pactor modes. That is other than being narrow.
I have copies Pactor that has to say the least been
multipath when on HF. Is there any clue in the waterfall or do you go by
the sound?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Rein Couperus wrote:
All high-latency modes are unsuitable for ARQ.
A persistent misconception is that you would be using signals near the noise
level.
As I have stated many times, noise
the internet
discussion groups (I still co-moderate the Grazersedge yahoogroup) and
one was from Washington and most surprisingly one was from NZ. So you
never know who you might be able to meet in person someday:)
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
Yes you must buy a box to play the mode
or at least PSK125 at a few dB
below zero dB S/N? Phone communication, even SSB would need a bit over
zero dB wouldn't it?
73,
Rick, KV9U
kh6ty wrote:
This illustrates the core of the problem of not having enough total path
gain to communicate with the EOC if the repeaters are down
with similar
equipment. Winlink 2000 does have some problems with respect to those
perspectives of mine (and probably most hams).
73,
Rick, KV9U
Jeff Moore wrote:
What I found even more interesting than the article on QRZ was the
comments on it. To a T everyone commented that it was good
whenever you need it.
Here is a good test. When you get on the bands, any bands, what modes
can you generally expect to contact someone? That tells you where you
want to be when all else fails.
73,
Rick, KV9U
David Little wrote:
It is interesting , isn't it?
MARS doesn't hold contests
amazingly close to another station and not even know they are there by
using improved filters and phenomenal IMD DR such as available from the
big three high performance companies (Elecraft, Flex-Radio, and Ten Tec).
73,
Rick, KV9U
Ken Meinken wrote:
Rick,
Do you really mean that anyone
evolved into
the world wide main digital discussion group.
Do other group members find the products and information useful for what
they are interested in? If so, what kinds of technologies are you using
with TAPR products and/or information?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
-Now there's
for amateur use. Don't you think that the the most
robust modes, often running at the slower speeds will be used on HF
amateur frequencies, if they can compete with existing modes?
73,
Rick, KV9U
dmitry_d2d wrote:
Hello Rick.
Let's turn our attention to the astonishing robustness of
Pactor-2/3
program. Then you can switch out the whole set
as to your preference.
5) Don't most of the programs have a log save feature?
Hopefully, I understood your questions correctly and this may have helped.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Kevin O'Rorke wrote:
Since I have had no reply to this post and it may have gon
has changed for those who want a robust and yet low
cost ARQ sound card mode with additional features such as quasi full
duplex operation and with speeds that are often much faster than
keyboard entry speed.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
-Mike,
Most of the old products had firmware
with many other combinations.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Steinar Aanesland wrote:
Hi Andy
Are you sure ? I have only 4/125 in my DM780 beta 1.1 build 1686
73 de LA5VNA Steinar
.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
heard your second connect as well,
as a suggestion make sure that the receive on your rig is as wide as
possible , 3khz or better
John
VE5MU
however.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
After you came up with the idea Sholto, I was fooling around with Rtty
and Olivia 250/2, and they are very close to the same speed.
MixW has 250/2 , so was playing with it.
It would be interesting to see which would do better under poor
interest. That is how I made a recent VBDigi/flarq ARQ contact this
week:)
I don't recall ever using the SSTV part of Multipsk but would be willing
to try it. 20 meters would likely be our best band between WI and FL?
Perhaps 14.074?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Jon Maguire wrote:
Rick,
Patrick sent me
of the
spectrum to those stations.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Brad wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Leigh L Klotz, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have ben hearing what sounds like Vietnamese on 14.070 LSB. I
suspect
bootleg operation.
We hear a lot of that throughout 40, 30
, a much more sensitive mode would need to be
developed to make this practical for typical amateur HF paths with 100
watt rigs and modest antennas.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
Still testing RFSM8000 , VE5MU on 7135 USB, email server address
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
using the same mode, what do you do after the initial exchange of images?
Or is it possible to do it the other way and be text chatting with
someone and then be able to send an image? How do you do this gracefully?
73,
Rick, KV9U
in the text data portions of the
bands here.
I thought I read some thing about a way you could use MFSK16 or some
other narrow mode and then switch over to send an image and then switch
back. Or am I mistaken?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Brad wrote:
Rick, most SSTV contacts are done with text templates
the
entire file, just to see what kind of throughput would be possible. But
as far as I can tell there was no throughput at all, so even a very
short file would likely not have been possible to move.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
heard your connect and came and watched……. band here was noisy
Pactor 2 (and
Pactor 3 when operating in the Level 1 speed) work so well. At this
time, it does not appear that there is any other mode that can compete
with that modulation technique based on all the comparisons that I have
been able to find.
Again, thanks for your help on this.
73,
Rick
suite on either Windows or Linux if you want to use that system.
Actually, it is a rather nice problem to have considering that a few
years ago we only had hardware solutions, and at great cost for modest
performance.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Phil Wells wrote:
Hi All,
Am fairly new to ham radio
to use, or can legally use. If they become available on Linux as
a native mode someday, then that could change.
At this time only Multipsk has almost all of the sound card modes in one
program and that is only available on MS Windows.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Tooner wrote:
I understand
to the more robust 75 bps
too or did you find that impractically slow?
73,
Rick, KV9U
dmitry_d2d wrote:
1. A few words about OFDM and serial tone modem.
Let's find out how the fight between ISI and Doppler shift
takes place in these systems. OFDM uses the great number of low
speed
Touche!! Patrick. I enjoy using your program.
Rick W3BI
- Original Message
From: Patrick Lindecker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 2:00:03 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
Hello Frank and all,
I
it only
has a few basic modes plus the ability to ARQ with the flarq program.
The main reason for using Multipsk for me now has been the superb FAE
400 mode. No other mode has those features and at the same time has
memory ARQ. Now if we could just get more hams to use it.
73,
Rick, KV9U
is your view on
comparing the multitone vs single tone modems?
73,
Rick, KV9U
dmitry_d2d wrote:
Hi, All.
About bit-rates and Baud-rates (in RFSM-8000).
RFSM-8000 uses vary bit-rates:
1) 600, 1200, 2400, 3200, 4800, 6400, 8000 - in wide (standard) mode;
2) 500, 1000, 2000, 2666, 4000, 5333
for software to
arrive at a critical mass and make the mode useful for the purposes we
want to employ.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Leskep wrote:
Just looked at the RFSM2400 site to check for new versions
and Dmitry has a new pricing structure for the Amateur version
of RFSM8000 with the release of ver .528
a whole
lot more as I think we were close to the edge of its capability.
73,
Rick, KV9U
cesco12342000 wrote:
Unluckily i have to say that this comparison is quite flawed...
using easypal which needs minimum 6db SNR in the lowest setting in
conditions of less than 4db snr (1/6 throghput you say
of say, -89 dBm with the
background noise and then you receive a signal at -76 dBm, are you
saying that this relationship has no association with S/N?
73,
Rick, KV9U
cesco12342000 wrote:
How is what we tested somehow flawed in your mind?
Compare it to testing psk31 against jt65
package that will appeal to the
mainstream digital ham.
I believe the best approach, and I see some are talking about this
lately, are programs that are modular and you can bolt on various parts
and not have to reinvent the wheel over and over with each new mode.
73,
Rick, KV9U
dmitry_d2d
of change with ARQ
sound card modes becoming available.
I would expect a number of other OT group members have had similar
experiences.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Leskep wrote:
Rick
Doesnt only apply to software - I have already been down that same path
with the P38 modem - got one going cheap
can comment.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Leskep wrote:
Hi Rick
Regarding RFSM2400/8000
I wonder if you both set up your sound card offsets in the program
Options/Hardware
This program does require a fairly correct sample rate setting on
both TX and RX to achieve full speed
On tests done here
who will have it available
and already have the skill to use it.
As we are finding with dozens of digital modes, no matter how good the
mode or software, if almost no one uses it, the value is very limited
when you are needing to communicate with others.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Simon wrote:
I
real enthusiasm from hams, even hams outside the U.S. who can
actually use this mode for text data as well as image.
I am surprised that your performance was not that good on VHF where I
would have expected it to do the best.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Howard Brown wrote:
GM Rick,
Several months ago I
,
Rick, KV9U
Leskep wrote:
Hi Rick
You could get the Free RADIOAMATEUR Trial Test version [for 30 day trial]
and do some experiments with that in the higher bands - this will allow you
to
experiment up to 8000 bits per second in wide bandwidth or up to bits
per
second in normal SSB
Dave's site for SSTV information:
http://www.kiva.net/~djones/
Scroll down to the EasyPal (New Version) section for information and
downloads.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Bob Christenson wrote:
Hi guys, I'm looking into SSTV. I see that popular frequencies to
operate it are 7171, 7173, 14230 and 14233
an Ameritron ALS-600 amplifier.
For those who are thinking that this is an SSTV experiment, it really is
more of a surrogate for the modem type. The only reason for using image
data instead of text data is to meet the requirements here in the U.S.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote
would have been quite helpful.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Steinar Aanesland wrote:
Hi all
The HAARP signal captured in Norway, with the moon bounce?
73 de LA5VNA Steinar
to key a COM port PTT mode so could use the older program. I
see that the new program claims to support CI-V.
Any thoughts on this? Anyone else who has experience with either of
these programs?
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
at 20:00Z
Beaconing 14103.0 RFSM8000, non-standard
not realize how much effort and energy goes into
posting to a group. Especially if well thought out and formatted to good
readability.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Danny Douglas wrote:
And who will go to that group? Probably only the ones being bothered with
the interference! Those who are happy
the legal framework of our country's
rules. Hopefully this will be true for other radio amateurs from their
respective countries.
73,
Rick, KV9U
kh6ty wrote:
is it acceptable for US stations to ignore the IARU Region 2 band plan,
when FCC regulations allow them to, or should they attempt
an interpretation and if the finding was not to
their satisfaction, to petition the FCC for a rule change. They did not
do this and now some of us have had to take action and do it in their
place.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
Yes, I received a private email from the individual
really knows. It is not possible to just know the
interpretation of every rule as written in a regulation. You simply must
contact those who do the interpretation when you are in doubt.
Do you have a better understanding of why this is done in this manner?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Chuck Mayfield wrote
Chuck,
Enough of your nonsense! Those of us who want integrity in the amateur
bands are doing our best. You clearly have guilt in what you are doing
and you fear that it will be an illegal activity. Your activities may be
interpreted as perfectly legal ... but they may not. You will just have
to be good choices?
73,
Rick, KV9U
for emergency messaging, but also for day to day
chat use and maybe even a BBS storage and retrieval. (Just thinking out
loud here:)
Perhaps it will add new modes or even the 8FSK50 FAE 400 mode which
works so well under fairly difficult conditions but still has modest
throughput.
73,
Rick, KV9U
with new users.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Alan Barrow wrote:
Rick wrote:
There is minimal ALE activity here in North America.
Ahh, the personal dispute with ALE again. OK, I'll bite.
You could also say there is a minimal of pskmail, nbems, or other activity.
The I listened and did not hear much
no help. Probably because no one knows the answer. On the other
hand, there have been many times that I have asked a question and
received help.
What specific digital information were you looking for that you can not
find elsewhere?
73,
Rick, KV9U
n4ijs wrote:
Hello!
I am new
then, other modes are so much better now, particularly the ALE400
mode or better yet the 8FSK50 FAE 400 ARQ mode.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Jack Chomley wrote:
Rick,
Well, its just another mode, to add to the
pile! You get RPR with the SCS DSP
Tracker, APRS is also using it and the DSP
Tracker
the Pactor 2 mode which is of a similar bandwidth and throughput?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
I found the item (below) on the SCS web site. Anyone use this new
class of packet ?
Robust Packet-Radio (RPR)
Up to now Packet-Radio over shortwave has been basically a
non-starter
ought not be wondering why you do not get the support you are looking for.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andy wrote:
Digital communication for ham emcomms is similarly a farce. ALE is
underused and grossly misunderstood by hams. Winlink appears effective
but out of the reach of most hams (on HF) , and other
, is that just because you don't totally
agree with each other is no reason to claim that this forum is
anti-emcomm. Many of us have this as one of our primary interests and
some cases may have been involved in this activity with CAP, MARS, and
ham radio, for many decades.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Alan Barrow
location and long term emergency back up power.
73,
Rick, KV9U
jgorman01 wrote:
Rick,
Good posting. I don't know how many times to say it, I'm not against
volunteering and using ham radio for emergency communications.
However, for me ham radio does come after several other things. I
that someone really, really, dislike ALE, when you know
that is not remotely accurate. Particularly when you know I have
strongly supported ALE 400/FAE 400 and have probably sung the praises of
FAE 400 more than any other poster to this forum.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Alan Barrow wrote:
Rick wrote
So you think we have problems with PacTor 3 in the Ham bands.watch this
video before it's removed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo
de Rick W3BI
- Original Message
From: jgorman01 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2008 7:47
much
in demand by local government due to their expertise.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
FYI, my hospital OWNS the ham equipment deployed at the facility.
ARES/RACES provides operators but we retain ownership of anything we
paid for out of Govt grants. I insisted
these things? Comments, pro or con?
73,
Rick, KV9U
it to resonant dipoles on the bands
of choice and see if it can compete. Would be helpful if you could get
back to us with your experiences:)
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
I don't have any antenna modeling software and probably would not know
how to achieve much if I did. Can someone model
wished they had installed time bombs in the software so
it would have become inoperative. Needless to say, some of us do not
support that kind of viewpoint.
73,
Rick, KV9U
David wrote:
.i believe these PMBO's use Pactor 3 which is a commercial program
of SCS in Germany.i also believe
it is supposed to go to?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Hz from
the center frequencies would overlap with a 250 baud rate.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Rein Couperus wrote:
Being so close to another net frequency is not going to work unless you
provide a proper filter.
Using flarq efficiently you need to
* use a 500 Hz filter or better
* use a distance
transmission since only a few world wide coordinated beacons are
legal below 28 MHz here in the U.S. They obviously can never leave the
station unattended without a rules violation, unless we hear differently
from the FCC.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
Rick
You keep lumping
John,
The FCC Part 97 has no such reference. Could you please explain why you
are making such as statement?
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
It is one thing to be automatic and attended
and another to be automatic and unattended .
The rules say you can't
respond in a way that some feel is not a proper
interpretation, or they are opposed to the rule, they can then petition
the government for a change. That is the democratic process and it
should be strongly supported by hams who want to do the right thing.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Don wrote:
Hi Rick
.
Otherwise, if the station is over 500 Hz, or if the station is operated
machine to machine, such as the old Winlink network, current NTS/D
network, packet networks, etc., (even if they were 500 Hz and under,
they must operate inside limited frequency segments on the HF bands.
73,
Rick, KV9U
has said, I am the only person experiencing this problem
of no waterfall on receive and yet the transmit, including the waterfall
pattern during transmit, works fine.
73,
Rick, KV9U
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rick wrote:
When you loaded your software, did you get a warning that a file
, for listening to MP3's, etc., but
it seemed the only practical solution for now. At least I can key up
the old rig with VOX, via rear panel connectors, which is something I
can not do with my ICOM 756 Pro 2.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
I think it might make sense to use the SAME
program has been involved with any of these
violations?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Russell Blair wrote:
My Question, is a beacon a beacon if is maned, or does
it have to be unmaned to be a beacon.
For me my beacon has not be on the air without being
here at the PC. So do we scrip the testing or find
to key the Kenwood TS-440 via the AFSK
RCA jacks after I re-discovered (have not used this for digital for
many, many years) that it can not be driven adequately via the Line out
from the sound card when using the 13 pin DIN plug.
73,
Rick, KV9U
kh6ty wrote:
Rick, do you receive PSK31 signals
: MSCOMCTL.OCX.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
It makes sense to me.
If you have TWO soundcards set in your PC, you need to tell VBdigi the
soundcard settings you want to use. I have the same setting as you, I
have an internal motherboard based souncard and a Creative PCI card.
The default
in They Shoot
Horses, Don't They?. Not a recommended movie for an uplifting time
however.
I like movies with reasonably happy endings. Maybe something like The
Game.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Dave Bernstein wrote:
15 QSOs in about 2 hours of operating, just under half with European
stations, all on 20m
mentioned
earlier, the programmers have mostly standardized on leaving the rig on
USB if using AFSK and they make the tones work correctly as if you were
actually transmitting FSK with mark high.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
For RTTY whoever uses the American Tones (Mark 2125Hz - Space
1000 or even 2000+ Hz.
It would be very much appreciated to hear other comments of those who
are using FAE 400, both pro and con.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Jack Chomley wrote:
Rick, have you ever used Domino Ex? Just wondering how FAE 400
compares with it?
73s
Jack VK4JRC
into consideration
(sensitivity, ease of use, ability to work under difficult conditons, etc.).
73,
Rick, KV9U
Patricia (Elaine) Gibbons wrote:
*//*
*/I prefer live chat via Pactor-I .. /*
*//*
*/The problem is the decline in general usage by /*
*/most radio amateurs who prefer
I think I have the most current version. It apparently does not work
like say PSK31 as it did not seem to remove the error, but from now one
I will backspace and just assumer that it is being taken care of, HIHI
73,
Rick, KV9U
f6cte wrote:
Rick,
RR for all the experimentation done
out quite accurately with their
timebase and this seems to enhance modes that require the best possible
timing.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Jack Chomley wrote:
At 12:35 AM 1/01/2008, Rick wrote:
Hi Jack,
In the later part of the message I mentioned that with the last station,
we tried another
301 - 400 of 696 matches
Mail list logo
