niddy noddy wrote:
Are there any active Hellschreiber Nets?
Also I have questions about how listers are running
this mode?
I am actually running it AFSK, what are the
standardconventions for this mode?
KF8ZN
Don't know about any nets, but I run HELL alot on 20 and 40M. On 40M
usually
martinbradford2001 wrote:
I have an old PakRatt which seems to do a far better job than any
modern CW decoder I have tried - its a bit picky about its input
level but once you have that set that correctly it seems to cope with
some pretty poor morse... That is software which must be close to
John Becker wrote:
Can some one tell me why the sound card digital modes use USB
and not LSB like the other digital modes?
John, WØJAB
Louisiana, Missouri
EM48LK
Is this causing you problems of some sort or other? de Roger W6VZV
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Andrew J. O'Brien wrote:
Any suggestions for a fun digital
modes related HF contest that we can run on Christmas Day?
I'm thinking of something casual,
easily scored, scores simply posted here, perhaps just a few hours of
the day but somehow involving everyone in different
Rick Scott wrote:
My take is that the frequencies are NOT guaranteed by the FCC Period.
And if an Active QSO is in progress, and the Auto op interferes with
that QSO its called Jamming and subject to fines PERIOD.
True, although the FCC seems to have taken a hands-off approach to the
Dave Bernstein wrote:
So we should say to the PSK and RTTY operators QRM'd by semi-
automatic Pactor and Pactor-3 stations given broad frequency rights
under the ARRL's proposal, just switch to Olivia and you'll be
fine?
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
It appears that the ARRL proposal
Dave Bernstein wrote:
In the US, there is currently no restriction on semi-automatic
operation with bandwidths of 500 hz or less, but semi-automatic
operation with bandwidths greater than 500 hz is restricted to
designated sub-bands.
The ARRL proposal, if adopted, would eliminate the current
John Bradley wrote:
new mode , works with MixW and can
send you the dll...just have to find it. similar to Olivia, narrower
bandwidth, little faster I think
-
O
All right Nick and Dennis!! What are the freqs for Contestia and
RTTYM? Also, what are the differences
Dave Bernstein wrote:
I strongly diasgree with the suggestion that someone shouldn't use a
clear frequency because an automatic station incapable of listening
before transmitting might later show up.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
You got that right.
de Roger W6VZV
Need a Digital mode QSO?
Dave Bernstein wrote:
Automatic stations should not transmit without first verifying that
the frequency is clear would please me just fine, John. Judging
from a sample of comments filed with the FCC regarding the ARRL
proposal, it would please a lot of hams.
You've again failed to respond to
Dave Bernstein wrote:
Pactor is not the problem, Roger. Ops running keyboard-to-keyboard
Pactor can determine that the frequency is clear before
transmitting, just as you would in PSK, RTTY, or Olivia.
That is, of course, true. I used to be a K to K Pactor operator myself
and I still own
bty229065 wrote:
I am new to digital modes, well not totally as I did run a Creed 7B
over a 2m link in 1971/72. Now I want to use RTTY and maybe some other
data modes on HF using an FT1000MP MkV Field. I would like to use the
rear RTTY port on the radio and leave the mic plugged into the
Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
AMATEUR
RADIO GETS FAVORABLE MENTIONS IN FEDERAL KATRINA REPORTS
Ham radio received positive mentions in post-Katrina reports from the US
House of Representatives and the White House. References to the Amateur
Radio Emergency Service (ARES), the
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
Cheapest foray in to Pactor?
IF I was to try to become QRV on Pactor (transmit capability), what
is the cheapest way to get going. I have an old Pk232 that I could
upgrade for $130 or so, any cheaper alternatives?
--
Andy K3UK
Skype:andyobrien73
Also on Echolink
John Becker wrote:
My first 2 Pk-232 did not have pactor but the
3rd unit Release 01.DEC.1983 Ver. 07 has Pactor.
I did see one on ebay for just 75 bucks.
John
Again, remember that the PK232 can only support Pactor 1, which is not
in wide use. Pactor 2 and above are what is used mostly
Steve Waterman, k4cjx wrote:
There are a number of Participating Winlink stations that will accept
Pactor 1 when using Winlink 2000. Get the latest firmware if you are
using the PK-232. There is no memory ARQ, and I would think that a
used KAM Plus would be a better bargan, but each will work.
yves dussault wrote:
Hi!
After four years away from PSK,
where should I look for PSK QSO's?
I used to work them on 14071.0 LSB.
Are they still there, and what other
frequencies should I look at?
Same place. Also look at 7.070-073, and 10100-109
de Roger W6VZV
Do the recent FCC reg changes affect our ability to use 1Khz Olivia or
SSTV? Are there any negative aspects to the changes that affect digital
other than on 80M? Thanks, RJB.
-
--
Roger, W6VZV
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
I have been in touch with some staff at ARRL HQ about the 500Hz data
matter. Their official position is that U.S. hams should be
conservative about this, and avoid using 500Hz data transmissions
until they have clarified the matter with the FCC. Unofficially ,
expeditionradio wrote:
Whoever wrote the the recent omnibus rule changes at FCC should not
be allowed to touch another official ruling until they get better
micro-management supervision. Not only was the work sloppy, but it
was self-contradictory. One wonders if they had ever read their
expeditionradio wrote:
The new FCC definition of Data does not make PACTOR-III illegal
on HF in USA as some (including ARRL) have suggested. PACTOR-3
continues to be legal on HF under the new rules.
Is this topic header pretty deceptive? It appears to say that an FCC
clarification of
expeditionradio wrote:
Hi Roger,
ARRL was as confused as many other hams were by the new rules. That
was understandable, considering how poorly written and
self-contradictory they are.
But, in the case of the 500Hz bandwidth limit, the FCC has already
published guidelines in the
expeditionradio wrote:
It is now high time for all the PACTOR-haters to eat crow :)
Meaning no offense, but I would say that it is you that is proven
wrong. You have been stating that the regulations as recently
promulgated (not after the corrections that we are now promised) made
Pactor 3
expeditionradio wrote:
Respectfully, Roger, if you are one of the many who were jumping up
and down on the PACTOR3 illegal bandwagon, then it is certainly
time for you to eat crow. If you were not, then don't worry about it.
But, I do notice that the most vocal PACTOR-haters are
Any interest in a digital contest held on New Year's Day? Here's
the idea
We are already hip-deep in contests, several on New Year's Day.
de Roger W6VZV
Jerry W wrote:
Sorry John,
IMHO I do not agree, there is a need for open source OS. Even
Microsoft is buying into Linux with Novel, maybe Bill is afraid, HI
No matter what group I join, this Windows v. Linux topic comes up. If
we are not supposed to keep talking about the new FCC
Mark Miller wrote:
ERRATUM Released: November 27, 2006 By the Chief, Mobility Division,
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: 1
I assume that this means 1Khz MT63 and Olivia are now permitted after
12/15/06.
I suppose it also means Pactor 3 is still permitted?
de Roger W6VZV
DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
Roger,
All of these things have a LOT to do with digital operation. The
rules, the modes, the operating systems and programs are all a vital
part.
Sorry, I disagree. You could transplant this Windows v. Linux thread
into the photography and other
Irvine wrote:
Sorry Roger, This digitalradio group is very helpful to me and I
appreciate all the effort to keep it going. I strongly support
discussion of any OS, software, operating frequencies etc.
I do not see what a discussion about the merits of various operating
systems has to do
Simon Brown wrote:
- Original Message - From: Roger J. Buffington
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:barrister54%40socal.rr.com
I do not see what a discussion about the merits of various
operating systems has to do with digital radio, except
incidentally.
As a developer (mainly
David Struebel wrote:
There are other digital automatic users besides the email Winlink 2K
systems you cite. The National Traffic System (certainly a part of
ham radio, and has been around for over 50 years) uses the automatic
section of 80 meters for passing traffic thru the NTS Digital
KV9U wrote:
They also have claimed that the W1AW operator listens on each
frequency and can tweak the frequency if necessary. I am not sure if
this is true or not and it would be very difficult to do this since
they simulcast on some many frequencies at once.
Are you sure? I have never
I am gearing up for sending images via MFSK upon 12/15/06. What pixel
sizes are recommended for MFSK images? Been so many years since I did
it I no longer remember.
de Roger W6VZV
jgorman01 wrote:
This occurs without any operator intervention, it is done
automatically by the pactor modem's internal software. A real great
operational system for the amateur bands isn't it?
Jim WA0LYK
No it is not. Good explanation of the problem.
de Roger W6VZV
jgorman01 wrote:
Rick,
From the ARRL's website:
Rather, we ask only that the Commission restore the privileges
unintentionally withdrawn from those who operate and who utilize
automatically controlled NARROWBAND digital stations between 3620 and
3635 kHz, the League said. The ARRL
Chris Jewell wrote:
Bill McLaughlin writes:
I'll be surprised if the effective date is earlier than 1 February.
-- 73 DE KW6H, ex-AE6VW Chris Jewell, Gualala CA USA
Sounds about right.
de Roger W6VZV
Simon Brown wrote:
From: Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:aa6yq%40ambersoft.com
The option to display in upper case is better than nothing, but
readability is best optimized by letting the user choose
- the font and its associated metrics (size, bold, italic)
- the font
Danny Douglas wrote:
I have used Olivia, Throb, PSK63, Hell, MFSK all successfully on the
low end just below the normal PSK freqs on 20 meters. It would seem
to me the best place on all bands, using the low end of normal PSK
frqs, where people would notice you. Early on, in each of
Simon Brown wrote:
Hi Roger,
Coming along really well. I will very probably never use PSK31 Deluxe
again. My immediate plans are to get the SuperBrowser integrated
(better said - rewritten), then we'll add another wave of testers.
I'll announce progress here if you want.
Simon
John Champa wrote:
Steinar,
I think US hams are simply reading far too much into their
regulations. They tend to do that because we are over exposed: We
have too many under-employed lawyers in the US, and way too many
wanna bes. In the Army we called these amateur lawyers, barracks
John Bradley wrote:
hi Andy;
Saw u working K5ZZ , Bill and W6VZV , Roger. like you I could copy
the pix sent by K5ZZ and sent him a couple, but for some reason Roger
could not copy pix. He is using 2 screens, so wonder if that might be
a problem?
I solved the problem by re-installing
John Bradley wrote:
tell me when and where ...mid morning January 1 would work since
propagation isn't bad
john VE5MU
let us know the time and freq and initial mode and I will be available
as well.
de Roger W6VZV
expeditionradio wrote:
Considering USA's recent diminishment of the data subband segment on
40 meters, the projected increase in the number of Extra operators,
the declining use of morse CW in the world, and the increasing use of
digital keyboarding, the trend is heading toward more
Rick Scott wrote:
RUDE RTTY OPS DESTROYING QSOs on PSK
Im going to post a HALL OF SHAME of these ops.
Nothing to be done about it, alas. This happens every major RTTY
contest. The gentlemen's agreement bandplan goes out the window, and
they call CQ right on top of ragchewers. It has
There is heavy RTTY contesting on 17M; specifically around 18.105Mhz. I
had understood, perhaps incorrectly, that contesting was excluded from
the WARC bands. No?
de Roger W6VZV
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Roger,
You are correct, there is no contesting on 17M or the other WARC
bands.
It's XT2C working split from Burkina Faso.
73 Russ WA3FRP
Great. Glad to be wrong about the contesting taking place on 17M. Hope
lots of the fellows got some good DX then.
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
I actually had my first Pactor QSO today, there was a ham calling CQ
on 40M Pactor 1 FEC. After working him via Pactor, we tried to
compare Olivia versus Pactor going down to 1 watt, both were 100%
copy. We were about 100 miles apart.
-- Andy K3UK Skype Me :
Operating digital is something that most of us seem to learn more or
less on our own, with the (huge) help of the internet, with all of its
resources. One of the things that frequently surprises me are some of
the myths and misconceptions that are common among digital ops. Here
are a few.
Simon Brown wrote:
[1] Never run ALC or audio compression, keep your signal 100% linear.
So true. Fortunately, most people seem to have learned this.
Re: filtering - a good rig with a high dynamic range + good soundcard
may not need so much filtering as (say) and FT-817. With my
John Becker wrote:
At 09:08 AM 1/9/2007, you wrote:
1. Power does not matter for digital modes.
This may hold true for sound card modes. Butt I think for the older
digital modes of RTTY AMTOR and PACTOR you will find that power does
matter.
Power matters for all of the digital modes.
mulveyraa2 wrote:
Are you using the mechanical filters, the DSP filters, or both?
Particularly for digital modes, the mechanical filters will make a
world of difference, since they'll be reducing the passband width - a
necessity in crowded conditions, or when a strong station is causing
Simon Brown wrote:
I don't think you should run these on the 480 as they are in the AF
chain and will always degrade the information you need to decode the
signal.
It's not what you hear, it's what your software can decode. Let the
software do the work...
Simon Brown, HB9DRV
I had
mulveyraa2 wrote:
I had understood, perhaps incorrectly, that the TS480 provided for
mechanical filters, i.e. the excellent Kenwood 500 or 250 hz
filters.
The 480 does permit mechanical filters - two of them, in fact.
They're optional items though.
Actually, if you look at the
mulveyraa2 wrote:
I am surprised at how many digital ops seem to run rigs without IF
filters - even on rigs that can accomodate them. It seems like
everyone wants to see the entire 2.8khz passband at once, even while
in a QSO. It makes far more sense to use the whole passband when
larry allen wrote:
Assuming the no code licencee can only use voice... what happens when
they loose interest in only being able to use voice Larry ve3fxq
Why not the digital modes? So far this is the only post appropriate for
the group on this topic. :-)
de Roger W6VZV
Peter G. Viscarola wrote:
Forgive a relative newbie if this is a dumb question:
My QTH is East Cost USA (about 50 miles north of Boston). I've been
working PSK31 (and other digital modes) a few hours a day for about 4
months now. I haven't once even HEARD a station in Asia or Oceania.
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
I received a Skype call from a ham asking me the very same question I
was thinking last week...what has happened to Olivia? Last year I
would say it was behind only PSK31, Pactor and RTTY in terms of
frequent actvity for digital modes. Now I think it is not as
Simon Brown wrote:
Hi,
You must have HRD running for logbook support. Over Easter DM780 will
be made available as a public beta, this is 10x better than PSK31
Deluxe, it has a built-in logbook (HRD logic / database). It runs
with / without HRD.
If you want to try the internal beta
Brad wrote:
KL7's, KP4's and KH6's can operate SSB from 7075 to 7100. .
Brad VK2QQ
That's news to me. Is that right?
de Roger W6VZV
Rick Scott wrote:
The only Coodination I see is WINLINK trying to grab all the
available Frequencies
I can summarize the gist of Bonny's coordination with much fewer bytes:
3.5 Mhz-4.0 Mhz -- Winlink
de Roger W6VZV
Rein Couperus wrote:
We generally use 300 Hz filters for PSK125 and they are too wide.
There is no substitute for good narrow Xtal filters. I don't
understand how you can try to work PSK31 (50 Hz bandwidth) with a 2.7
kHz filter. That is against all logic (and math).
We recommand using
expeditionradio wrote:
Hi Scott,
There is no grab happening. Everyone has to operate somewhere in this
small band. Since the sub-band changes are fairly new, the only
coordination entities listed so far have been well-organized ones
like ARRL NTS, Winlink2000, ARRL's W1AW station, and
Danny Douglas wrote:
I have a hard time visualizing the need for a narrow filter, for such
narrow modes. You can sit, in PSK for instance, slap up against
another PSK signal and still copy much weaker signals. Thats the
whole purpose of the narrow band digital modes to start with. I use
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know all the capabilities of my rig ft-897 and psk31 but the
other day I had a what appeared to be a 100 watt plus psk31 station
that basically with AGC reduced the signal reaching my computer so
much that I couldn't copy almost any station never mind weak
Dave wrote:
Has anyone tried using either a 250 Hz or 500 Hz filter for PSK31
reception? My Icom IC-746 (non-Pro) has no filters installed, and is
wide as a barn door on USB for PSK31. I wondered if either of these
filters would help, or would they be too narrow?
The pass-band shift
John Becker wrote:
At 09:03 PM 3/7/2007, you wrote in part:
The cw,rtty, data subbands are considered narrow mode,
This is really good to know. It should put a stop to all the
complaining that has been going on about the RTTY AMTOR and PACTOR
signals on the bands. I just love it when
Joe Ivey wrote:
Rick,
I agree with what you are saying. I guess that no one really realized
what would happen when the FCC allowed this. But I still say that
most of the traffic that goes through the system right now is
needless. With all the communications out there, internet, cell
Rich Mulvey wrote:
But hey - let's try something truly radical: How about - wait for it,
this is truly a novel idea - how about manually operated stations
operate somewhere away from the automatic subbands?
I know, I know, just because there are *wide* swaths of practically
unused
John Becker wrote:
Ok playing Devil's Advocate here. why in the world would the PSK pick
070 any knowing that has was used for years and years for the auto
pactor station It's like play tag in a 5 lane interstate.
This one I'll never understand.
Very simple. Because the 070 frequencies
On 3/7/07, *kc7fys* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have the 13-pin and 5-pin DINs wired up and connected to my Kenwood
850S. The RS232 connected--now what software should I install for my
first HF data mode QSO? What is the best and easiest software to get
Seems all the stateside operators want to do is argue.
Is the plan to go back to the fundementals of this group, or do we
set up a new one where policy arguments would be punted?
John VE5MU
Fellows, injecting national slurs into *any* ham radio discussion is a
spectacularly bad idea.
mulveyraa2 wrote:
I think I've actually gotten a Thanks! I'll drop my drive level down
next time maybe twice. A few never responded back, and the
remainder were of the F-you, there's nothing wrong with my signal or
equipment style. Needless to say, you can recognize the same guys
over
Dave Bernstein wrote:
..
So why don't we just not operate in the middle of automatic
stations and shut up, as you suggest? Two reasons:
1. unattended automatic stations with a bandwidth of 500 hz or less
can run anywhere in the data bands, so there is no safe frequency
2.
Danny Douglas wrote:
The best answer is NO linears at all. Not gonna happen. But, in those
countries whee no linears are allowed, things seem to work quite
smoothly and operators get out and work DX better than most people
here do.
Danny Douglas N7DC
Well yeah. Countries in Europe and
Bill Vodall WA7NWP wrote:
This would still be a good solution. 1/3 the band for narrow museum
modes. 1/3 for voice modes and 1/3 for modern progressive modes with
no rules or bandwidth limits and let technology rule.
73 Bill - WA7NWP
I am confused. What is a narrow museum mode? PSK31?
Bill Vodall WA7NWP wrote:
There was no detection available when the rules were implemented
(1995?). That is the reason for the automatic areas. It was
primarily intended for fully automatic stations, such as the
Winlink system (perhaps the is still true for the NTS/D system
which
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
FCC Announcement
It was announced today that Kellogg's and the Federal Communications
Commission have signed a pact to issue Amateur Radio Licenses on
specially marked boxes of Corn Flakes. In this unprecedented move the
FCC believes this will not hurt amateur
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
-One man's garbage may be another man's treasure.
Andy.
I 'spose. :-)
de Roger W6VZV
Salomao Fresco wrote:
Hi!
It looks great! It works great!
Today I made a pause on my sabatic leave on amateur Radio to try
DM780. Made a few QSO's and I think it does what it says. The adition
of modes as the time passes will make it a piece of software to keep
an eye on. We will
Simon Brown wrote:
Drag the marker, it's in the User Guide, I'll make this more obvious
:-)
Simon Brown, HB9DRV
Yes, thank you I actually found it there on p64. On my computer I had
to press control and left click for it to drag. Works FANTASTIC!!
Except for spending 15 minutes or so
Patricia Gibbons wrote:
Yes, I have MIXW, with a tigertronics SignaLinkUSB interface,
connected to a Yaesu FT897D ..
In digital mode, I can select the 500 Hz CW filter, then using the IF
shift, I move the IF passband so that it is centered on the signal
being received .. generally
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
Now that images are legal to transmit (in the USA) and MFSK16 is set
for this in MixW and Multipsk, I wonder if it has been determined
useful ? I rarely hear/see any use of this function. .
-- Andy K3UK Skype Me : callto://andyobrien73 callto://andyobrien73
wa0cqg wrote:
As mentioned in an earlier post, I have a PacComm Pactor I controller
(vintage 1992) with version 2.02 firmware. I did find the original
operating instructions and am wondering if there is some better
software to use than trying to find some terminal emulator. What
would
John Bradley wrote:
Hmmm. Large number of rules sounds like suppression to me.
The right of citizens to experiment and innovate freely without the
government telling them where when and how would be a truly free
society.
My guess is that the vast majority of non US hams on this
Peter G. Viscarola wrote:
Let me hasten to add: I certainly DO NOT want to be an discourteous
operator, and I ONLY wish to operate my station in accordance with
best practices. Seriously.
So, how does one reconcile the oft-repeated mantra only run 25W or
40W with my experience? Am I
Danny Douglas wrote:
Absolutely spot on Erick. That is one reason that we try to tell new
people, on the digital bands, to start with as few watts as they can.
There is just no reason to run 100 watts ( and I expect some run
more) on the PSK, etc. digital modes. Everytime I say that
Brian A wrote:
You are totally WRONG if you truly believe that the other station KHz
away is at fault because he captures your AGC when you're using a 3
KHz filter. As you point out PSK is only 31 HZ wide. Thus it only
seems reasonable to try and copy them with a narrow filter. A filter
John Champa wrote:
Bruce,
When are you ever going to stop your babling ignorance about wide
band HSMM on 6-meters?
You are worried about 100 kHz when the band maybe opens in a few
years out of a 4,000 kHz wide band. Get real! Attach brain to
keyboard.
I am getting very tired of
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
Quite a lot of MFSK16 activity on 20M today. Don't forget this useful
mode.
Andy K3UK
Indeed. My favorite digital mode. I live for the day when DM780
includes it! :-)
de Roger W6VZV
Dave wrote:
I have apparently missed the memo that covered the way calls are made
and answered on PSK31. I just answered a CQ sent by one station,
only to have a completely different station call me back and start a
QSO as if I had answered him! This is at least the 4th or 5th time
this
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
I think the point was simply that there may be some new,
inexperienced, operators on 10...not poor operators. If they were at
28300, they are WAY OFF the recommended PSK31 frequency of 28120 USB.
Andy K3UK
Not 28070?
de Roger W6VZV
Simon Brown wrote:
FWIW I tried the DominoEx-4/8/16 today without FEC. Nice mode - at
the moment I'm only supporting the 8kHz sample rate modes without any
FEC. If the need arises I'll add the 11.025kHz variants.
To complete my current programming effort I guess I should look at
MT63 -
Vojtech Bubnik wrote:
Question - what's so special about MT63 - where / when is it used?
From my point of view, MT63 has high number of carriers, which
implies
low crest factor - the effective transmitted power will be much lower
than of single tone mode like Olivia, if you make sure
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
-
So if I were you and the above description covers you I would buy an
SCS-modem. The cheapest one is the PTC-IIex.
73 de SV1UY
Andy, if you ever make it to California I can look in my junk closet for
my PTC-II modem (will support Pactor 1,2,3). I quit using it
Rud Merriam wrote:
My only criticism is you are lumping a tool, PACTOR, into a procedure
discussion. PACTOR is a tool that has nothing to do with unattended
operation, except it is used in unattended operation.
Which is about all it is used for. Nothing wrong with Pactor as a live
QSO
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
Yes Dave, but my questions are related to what Hollingworth was
saying at Dayton. Was he implying that they don't really care about
the issue and suggesting that we all lighten up and resolve the
matters among ourselves ?
I sure hope that is not what he meant. How
expeditionradio wrote:
JT65a is certainly an automatic mode. It is as automatic as any other
automatic system. It perfectly fits the definitions of automatic in
both the strictest sense and in many other ways, figuratively,
literally and as used in RF communications:
It sounds like a
Bill Aycock wrote:
Frank- I think that there is MUCH confusion in our ranks on this
subject. For instance, I set my rig to one frequency (usually
14,070.00) and leave it there. I tune to different signals by moving
the marker that shows the offset from the base frequency on the
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Brian A [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong. However, reading all these posts suggests
that what these wonder modes want and or need is channelized,
clear channel frequencies,
Dave Bernstein wrote:
Whether you find an interesting signal by clicking on traces in a
panoramic tuning display or by rotating your tranceiver's tuning
dial, ideally you should then direct your digital mode application to
place the selected signal at a pre-specified optimal audio offset
1 - 100 of 171 matches
Mail list logo
