Re: [digitalradio] in need of a USB to DB9 cable
Get an RS-232 to USB converter (inexpensive). I don't believe there is such a thing as an RS-232 - USB cable. Brian Denley http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 11:52 AM Subject: [digitalradio] in need of a USB to DB9 cable Anyone know of a source? John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Universal M-8000--Dinosaur in Today's World?
Wayner: An M-8000 is worth more than $100. If you don't want to buy it, ask him if he will sell it to me! Brian Denley http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html - Original Message - From: wayner rueg...@insightbb.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:06 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Universal M-8000--Dinosaur in Today's World? I have a chance to buy a Universal M-8000 decoder from a friend for $100. Is it worth it, or do todays digital software blow it out of the water? (DM 780, MultiPsk, etc?) I am a SWL who has a NRD-535D hooked into a RF Systems DX-One and a Wellbrook 1530 loop, and I just got started with digital modes. I presently use DM 780, MultiPsk, FLdigi. From looking at the info, it looks like the M-8000 has a lot of modes that are not used anymore according to the spec sheets. I am a new member of this group, and am trying to learn all I can about digital modes. I live in Southern Indiana, and my main interests are Maritime listening and trying to decode digital signals. Thanks for any input you might have. Wayner
Re: [digitalradio] New SDR available
Very impressive! I will strongly consider buying one. Anyone own the LD1? Brian Denley http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html - Original Message - From: Peter p...@lazydogengineering.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 1:46 PM Subject: [digitalradio] New SDR available Hi, all. I'm offering a new SDR, inspired by the Softrock-40 but with some significant improvements. Instead of a crystal LO, it uses two Analog Devices DDS chips, and has 5 selectable preselector filters. It also feature USB control. Anyone who's interested can find the details at http://www.lazydogengineering.com/LD1home.htm and at my blog, www.garage-shoppe.com. 73, Pete, NI9N
Re: [digitalradio] Techs on HF digital
You would think those 'old guard' guys would consider that we used to have to know binary and 2's complement math to use a computer at all. The technology got to the point where you didn't need those 'older' skills. We are better for it. Brian Denley http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html - Original Message - From: Dan Hensley kc9...@yahoo.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 4:33 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Techs on HF digital Another problem is that the old guard who have an axe to grind against new amateurs due to the change in licensing requirements and other new FCC policies to go with that change which occurred back in Feb of 2007, are running new amateurs off in droves. Hazing or outright threatening behavior by hams licensed before Feb of 2007 is another reason new hams are not getting on the air. I went through this myself. A mentality has arisen that amateur radio is only for listening and you're never supposed to transmit. Everyone wants the bands quiet and wants the next amateur to just stop operating. --- On Tue, 12/15/09, Glenn L. Roeser hillbillietr...@yahoo.com wrote:
[digitalradio] Re: A challenge to RTTY operators!
Robert, Thanks for pointing this out. The link is for 1999. Regarding WF1F/RITTY. The 1998 manual I have for WF1B (a DOS program) shows support for RITTY as a DOS TSR. Earlier manuals don't show it. I recall trying to get a sound card going in DOS. It was a real bear-- at least for the Soundblaster card I had. TSR's were flaky too. WF1B later became unusable as CPU speeds approached 1GHZ. It simply quit. Timing loop indicies became too large integers for their type in the code. Attempts to use CPU slow down programs to contiue to use WF1B were not too successful. The author had quit supporting WF1B at that time. The PASCAL source was available but nobody picked it up to fix this. RIP WF1B. All this history sort of indicates the 1999 to be the start of useful software/sound card RTTY for contesting or other use. 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Robert Chudek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brian, A minor correction to the statement WF1B supported quite a few TU types but no sound cards. RTTY by WF1B supported the RITTY program by Brian, K6STI. http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/235 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN - Original Message - From: Brian A To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 2:45 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: A challenge to RTTY operators! Rick, I used a CP-1 TU up to the day the WF1B RTTY contest program became unsupported. WF1B supported quite a few TU types but no sound cards. That was around 1996 or 7. Here's a tidbit of info. Score required to win 1997 USA CQ WW RTTY single op assisted in 1997 = 553k points. I still have the plaque for it. It was done with a CP-1 and WF1B software. This was TU, not sound card era for RTTY. I don't believe MTTY and was created until several years later. MTTY by itself was pretty much useless as a contesting program. It couldn't even export its logs. It only supported a few rigs. It wasn't until codes like Writelog and N1MMLOGGER integrated MTTY and such engines in contesting programs that contesting became practical. K6STI RTTY was in there too about the same time with perhaps the best decoder available and a contesting interface. Piracy issues essentially killed the K6STI program. The author stopped supporting it. The last few years about 1.5 million points is required to win the same award. I ammend my statement. It wasn't just sound card RTTY but sound card RTTY plus having it integrated into contesting programs that released the contesting flood of RTTY stations. P.S. despite the sound card revolution, I stick with my HAL DXP38 DSP TU. Sound card apps seem to have a nasty habit of refusing to work for unknown reasons. One day they work, the next they don't. One has to be a computer Geek to bring them back to life. This isn't just my experience. 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick mrfarm@ wrote: I have to concur with Jose on this. I was a very active HF and VHF digital ham starting around 1981 with a homebrew XR2206/XR2211 TU that was from QST magazine and called The State of the Art TU. It most assuredly was not, but being naive and new to RTTY found it to be a very poor performer. It was actually only detecting one of the tones with the tone decoder! This was before computers became popular and I was interfacing with a Model 15 TTY and a homebrew loop circuit. I was able to borrow an huge tube ST-6 design TU and that was much better. Then computers started to be available at more affordable prices and I moved to the Commodore 64 and a ROM based software package. Later I had the Kantronics UTU, and eventually an AEA CP-1 using the BMKMulty DOS software. This was before it could do Pactor, but the program already cost $100 for basic RTTY/AMTOR and then you had to buy the CP-1 or some kind of interface to key the rig. BMKMulty eventually had a Pactor upgrade for I think another $100, but I have heard it was not that good. In fact, none of the third party hardware for Pactor was as good as the SCS modems, probably because they did not duplicate the memory ARQ. 73, Rick, KV9U Jose A. Amador wrote: Allow me to disagree (slightly) on the beginnings of RTTY popularity. I would blame Baycom, and the old Mix DOS versions. I used them (as well as quite few hams I know) way before PSK31 and the sound card modes appeared. Actually, after using them, I built a hardware modem that improved a LOT their performance, using both as terminals. I would say that PSK31 started the popularity of sound card modes. This is what I remember. Maybe others may have a different perspective. 73, Jose, CO2JA
[digitalradio] RTTY contester's survey
Look at: http://rttycontesting.com/2007survey/2007octsurveyresults.html It reflects the comments of over 500 RTTY contesters. One major conclusion: More RTTY contests wanted. This is despite the fact that there are at least 32 now. So if you think RTTY contests are going to disappear, think again. So to paraphrase K3UK: Digital ops: Why not try RTTY? 73 de Brian/K3KO
[digitalradio] Re: RTTY contester's survey
Roger, What about shared resoures don't you understand? There isn't any RTTY portion of the band for US licensees other than what is contained in the regs. For example on 20M: 14.025-14.150 MHz: CW, RTTY/Data (for several classes of licenses.) There simply isn't enough room to fit 500 stations in the normal 14080-14090 area. So just like the 160M contests, the stations spread to other frequencies where they are allowed. The do this to not operate on top of everybody else. If they find 14070 clear, they have every right to operate RTTY there. Likewise other digital modes can and do move to the area between 14080-14090 and operate there. I think you do see RTTY stations, even in contests, not mobbing the frequencies normally used by PSK stations-- at least on 20M. 40M is a whole other story for many reasons. 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Roger J. Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brian A wrote: Look at: http://rttycontesting.com/2007survey/2007octsurveyresults.html http://rttycontesting.com/2007survey/2007octsurveyresults.html It reflects the comments of over 500 RTTY contesters. One major conclusion: More RTTY contests wanted. This is despite the fact that there are at least 32 now. So if you think RTTY contests are going to disappear, think again. I don't think anyone thought that RTTY contests were going away. I do think that a) a lot of the RTTY contesters pretty much don't do much ham radio except contesting; and b) we need to learn to co-exist with contests such that a contest does not mean a suspension of the ordinary band plans, i.e. RTTY in the RTTY portion of the band, not on top of everyone else. Sure, some of these chaps probably would like there to be RTTY contests 52 weeks a year. I guess that is about what you are saying. de Roger W6VZV
[digitalradio] Re: A challenge to RTTY operators!
Rick, I used a CP-1 TU up to the day the WF1B RTTY contest program became unsupported. WF1B supported quite a few TU types but no sound cards. That was around 1996 or 7. Here's a tidbit of info. Score required to win 1997 USA CQ WW RTTY single op assisted in 1997 = 553k points. I still have the plaque for it. It was done with a CP-1 and WF1B software. This was TU, not sound card era for RTTY. I don't believe MTTY and was created until several years later. MTTY by itself was pretty much useless as a contesting program. It couldn't even export its logs. It only supported a few rigs. It wasn't until codes like Writelog and N1MMLOGGER integrated MTTY and such engines in contesting programs that contesting became practical. K6STI RTTY was in there too about the same time with perhaps the best decoder available and a contesting interface. Piracy issues essentially killed the K6STI program. The author stopped supporting it. The last few years about 1.5 million points is required to win the same award. I ammend my statement. It wasn't just sound card RTTY but sound card RTTY plus having it integrated into contesting programs that released the contesting flood of RTTY stations. P.S. despite the sound card revolution, I stick with my HAL DXP38 DSP TU. Sound card apps seem to have a nasty habit of refusing to work for unknown reasons. One day they work, the next they don't. One has to be a computer Geek to bring them back to life. This isn't just my experience. 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have to concur with Jose on this. I was a very active HF and VHF digital ham starting around 1981 with a homebrew XR2206/XR2211 TU that was from QST magazine and called The State of the Art TU. It most assuredly was not, but being naive and new to RTTY found it to be a very poor performer. It was actually only detecting one of the tones with the tone decoder! This was before computers became popular and I was interfacing with a Model 15 TTY and a homebrew loop circuit. I was able to borrow an huge tube ST-6 design TU and that was much better. Then computers started to be available at more affordable prices and I moved to the Commodore 64 and a ROM based software package. Later I had the Kantronics UTU, and eventually an AEA CP-1 using the BMKMulty DOS software. This was before it could do Pactor, but the program already cost $100 for basic RTTY/AMTOR and then you had to buy the CP-1 or some kind of interface to key the rig. BMKMulty eventually had a Pactor upgrade for I think another $100, but I have heard it was not that good. In fact, none of the third party hardware for Pactor was as good as the SCS modems, probably because they did not duplicate the memory ARQ. 73, Rick, KV9U Jose A. Amador wrote: Allow me to disagree (slightly) on the beginnings of RTTY popularity. I would blame Baycom, and the old Mix DOS versions. I used them (as well as quite few hams I know) way before PSK31 and the sound card modes appeared. Actually, after using them, I built a hardware modem that improved a LOT their performance, using both as terminals. I would say that PSK31 started the popularity of sound card modes. This is what I remember. Maybe others may have a different perspective. 73, Jose, CO2JA Brian A wrote: The advance that made RTTY so popular was the advent of sound card RTTY. I can attest to that since I operated RTTY contests before and after sound cards happened. The number of stations exploded as did contesting activity.
[digitalradio] Re: A challenge to RTTY operators!
Andy, Maybe it is a chicken and the egg thing. To have activity, you have to have activity. I don't think it has anything to do with the digital mode. The advance that made RTTY so popular was the advent of sound card RTTY. I can attest to that since I operated RTTY contests before and after sound cards happened. The number of stations exploded as did contesting activity. Surely those already having sound cards set up can operate other modes. Also some contesting programs already have PSK31/63/125 integrated in them. So it isn't for lack of contest softwar either. It thus must be something else. Here are two possible reasons. 1. Contesters If you don't have a large number of stations, workable at a high rate there's no interest. Why waste your time to just work a few? (Just ask HF contesters who operate VHF contests from remote areas. A total bore. I'm one. I spend a couple hours, work out the band and quit.) Ask contesters how they feel about Sunday afternoon during SS where their rate drops to 5% of average. They tell you they feel like a pit bull who has been trained to fight but has been chained, muzzled and castrated. But to get them back you have to convince those who have been turned off by lack of stations to get back on. Good luck on that. It is likely to take quite a bit of time. 2. Digital operators They seem to be mostly interested in ragchewing. I was driven from PSK31 by this longwindedness. I wanted to work new countries and lots of stations. Ragchewing is OK if you like it. I don't care for it even if the speed were PSK125. However, if you do, probably you won't like contesting. Getting them to like rapid fire QSO's is necessary. Good luck on that too. It may never happen. 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear RTTY-Fanatics Many non-RTTY digital mode operators are puzzled about those avid RTTY contesters who never seem to try other digital modes in contests. Those same non-RTTY digi mode operators tell jokes about RTTY old-timers who seem just stuck with the concept that ye olde RTTY is way better than other digital modes for contests. They have occasionally appealed to the RTTY old-timers to be daring and actually try contesting with modes like DominoEX and PSK63 . Usually the appeals have fallen on deaf ears , it seems like automobile drivers appealing to stage-coach drivers to try that new fangled motor vehicle concept. This weekend, you RTTY dudes have another chance to live dangerously and actually try a mode that many think is BETTER than RTTY for contesting . It may not really be better but it might actually be almost as good. So come on RTTY-freaks, prove that stereo-type of the curmudgeonly green machine addict to be as out of dates as..., as., .. well as out of dates as RTTY via green machines! Andy K3UK Date and Time Starting time is at 00:00 UTC, and ending time is at 24:00 UTC on Sunday 18th November, 2007. Objective The European PSK Club has the honour to invite the radio amateurs all over the world to participate in the EPC PSK63 QSO Party. The objective of the competition is to establish as many contacts as possible between radio amateurs around the world by using the BPSK63 mode. Everybody can work everybody for QSO and multiplier credit. BANDS AND FREQUENCIES Participants are allowed to work on 160 meters (1838...1840 KHz), 80 meters (3582...3584 KHz), 40 meters (7037...7039 KHz), 20 meters (14072...14074 KHz), 15 meters (21082...21084 KHz) and 10 meters (28082...28084 KHz). TYPE OF COMPETITION Transmitters and receivers must be located within a 500 meter diameter circle or within the property limits of the station licensee's address, whichever is greater. All antennas used by the entrant must be physically connected by wires to the transmitters and receivers used by the entrant. Only the entrant's call sign can be used to aid the entrant's score. All entrants are allowed to use packet and web clusters. There are no separate entrant categories in the competition; all participants work as SOAB (Single Operator - All Bands). All stations at which one performs do all of the operating, logging, and spotting functions. Only one signal is allowed at any one time. The operator may change bands at any time. The output power shall not exceed 100 watts. EXCHANGE EPC members should send signal report plus EPC membership number (example 599 EPC0001). Please make sure that you don't separate «EPC» from the «Number», and you don't use any characters between. Please make sure that your EPC number consists of 4 digits. Other stations should send signal report plus QSO number, starting 001 (example 599 001). POINTS Contacts with EPC members are worth 5 points; contacts with other stations are worth 1 point. The same stations may be contacted again on other bands. Multiplier A multiplier of one is for each
[digitalradio] Re: RF feedback with interface
Rick, Welcome to the world of QRO. You didn't mention your antenna system or band. Common problems guys have: 1) open wire line with goofy unbalanced antenna attached. 2) poor grounding of the rig. (A fat short ground connecting amp and rig needed.) Corroded connections at the ground stake. Old ground stake which has had the copper clad corroded away. 3) no balun or at least a coil of coax at the feedpoint of balanced antennas. The number of turns varies with freq. More turns isn't necessarily better. Unbalanced antennas often need a string of ferrites at the feed point around the coax. 4) tuners trying to tune a too short antenna. 5) indoor antennas or antennas too close to the house. Too bad one can't take a can of aerosol spray, spray the air and see the concentrations of RF. A severe RFI problem appeared over night here once. It turned out that the ground to the xcvr had worked loose with time. Tightening it up solved the problem. If you only operate one band, a 1/4 wave counterpoise connected to the amp may help. Just run it under the rug. Is the computer case grounded? 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Until recently, I only ran 100 watts maximum power, but I did purchase an Ameritron ALS-600 amplifier to help me mostly on lower band SSB. I was using the rig today and testing out my new Heil 781 mike that I am using to replace my ICOM hand mike. And we were testing various settings on the rigs bass and treble transmit controls. During the test the other stations suddenly noticed rather severe RFI feedback. I switched back to the old mike but the problem was still there. Having had a lot of problems in the past, I knew that this was likely due to RF getting into my digital control or audio lines from the computer sound card to the rig. Turning off the amplifier did stop the RFI, so it is apparently due to the increased RF. Also, after unplugging the audio line in and out to the ICOM 756 Pro 2, which is via a DIN plug on the back of the rig, the problem went away. Even with the amplifier running at full power. The CI-V was still connected. I still can not explain why no one noticed the problem earlier as they were critiquing my audio and would have noticed it. On both my CI-V and my audio lines I have about 20 turns of the cables around their own 1/2 x 7 ferrite rod which has a mu of 125. This was the way that I found would externally remove RF flowing on the outside of cables. For those of you who run power, even if not for digital modes but for other modes and have the connections left in place on the rig, how are you able to reduce or eliminate RF feedback in your audio lines? I have 1:1 transformers in line, no other chokes or bypass capacitors. 73, Rick, KV9U
[digitalradio] Re: RF feedback with interface
Rick, Your no ground situation + high power is a recipe for RF problems. Try some 1/4 wave counterpoises connected to the rig ground. You can have multiple ones for different bands connected simultaneously. People who live on second and third floors have the same problem with long ground paths. Counterpoises help them sometimes. Cheap and easy. Sounds like you need 10 db of improvement and these may be enough. 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick, Every wire under the influence of your radiating antenna can be a feedback pickup path. Try to minimize currents, ferrites are your best friends. Use only capacitors in shunt to ground only after a choke to minimize currents. All the homebrew equipment I have built has an RF filter in the power leads, L first and C after. I had to wind some ten turns of my speakers power cable on a mid size toroidal ferrite core (salvaged fom a defunct 100 W commercial radio) to quiet down the noises of PSK31 and Olivia. In a course of a certain solid state high power broadcast transmitter I learned that EVERYTHING that enters the transmitter cabinet passes thru some ferrite core FIRST, because every wire may be a feedback path in the near field of the broadcast antenna. It even provides some lightning protection, inductors first, varistors after, in the incoming signal path. Hope this helps, Jose, CO2JA Rick escribió: Antenna that gives me the main problem is an inverted vee dipole with apex at about 35 feet and ends at about 15 feet high. I have a Butternut vertical located about 150 out from the house that does not seem to cause any problems, but for close in ( 200 miles) the dipole is indispensable. It is of course throwing RF back to the shack as the apex is only 40 feet in horizontal distance to the base of the tower on the end of the garage. Everything is coax fed. I have tried balanced lines with tuners off and on over the years, but it is less convenient for routing and can be more of a problem with RF feedback too. I don't use any separate grounding and may have to try it as the main RF ingress seems to be the audio lines from the computer. If I disconnect from the computer (even leaving the DIN plug connected with the ferrite rod on that line which is a few feet long) it seems to clear up. It is only a foot of cable between the sound card and my 1:1 isolation transformers. I suspect that if I put a scope on the shield from the sound card I won't like what I see. It would be about 20 feet to run a ground to the outside SPG and I have also been skeptical that would help a lot. For some lightning protection, I disconnect my rigs from the antenna switch which grounds all unused feedlines, but of course, only through their shields, but at least it makes them common to each other. I admit that for 160/80 and maybe 40 meters, a 20 foot run is not too bad for grounding. 73, Rick, KV9U __ Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu
[digitalradio] Re: ALE400 - Narrow band ALE mode now available
You've forgotten about the nasty reality of AGC and receiver overload. For what you say to be true, one must disable the AGC and the receiver must have the dynamic range/overload capability to not fold with the wider bandwidth. If they did we would never need narrow filters. Many rigs have no off AGC position. The only other choice becomes reducing the RF gain. That eliminates the weak one you're trying to hear. A narrower filter can mitigate the AGC problem as well as improving the S/N ratio. The sound card digital filtering comes after all these stages in the chain. It simply cannot make up for receiver generated junk. The dynamic range is not set by the sound card but by the weakest part of the chain-- the RX. A SDR radio where the sound card is the IF is a different story entirely-- if the front end sound card and down converter circuitry is linear and can handle strong sigs. There are indeed sound cards that claim a 120db dynamic range. 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Vojtech Bubnik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Brian A alsopb@ wrote: 1) Using a 200 Hz filter instead of 400 or 500 Hz filter gives a 3db S/N ratio improvment-- PSK or RTTY. It's guaranteed. It is not. Using narrower filter will reduce total noise and out of channel QRM, lowering dynamic range requirements for MF, AF and A/D stages. If the chain has enough dynamic range, it does not matter, which filter you use. Each software PSK31 decoder contains narrow DSP filter just after A/D What really matters is S/N after this digital filter, which is independent of MF filter bandwidth. In other words, all the extra baggage (bandwidth) is generally just extra weight with no robust benefit. There are physical laws telling that one needs less energy to transport the same information, if he increases channel bandwidth. 73, Vojtech OK1IAK
[digitalradio] Re: ALE400 - Narrow band ALE mode now available
Patrick, I applaud all the experimenters out there trying to push the envelope. Meeting personal goals is a really healthy part of the hobby. It doesn't really matter if that goal become an integral part of ham radio or not. Experimention for its own sake is good. Also, thanks for the info. As one who uses digital only to communicate and DX, I'm not sure what all this buys me-- or the average ham. For starters: 1) Using a 200 Hz filter instead of 400 or 500 Hz filter gives a 3db S/N ratio improvment-- PSK or RTTY. It's guaranteed. 2) There are actually many people to talk to. 3) 100% copy is not needed in most QSO's. If someone's rig displays on the screen as a TS-851 instead of a TS850, it really doesn't matter. Similarly with eyeball QSO's with someone, nobody copies all words 100%. Let's face it, even with a few errors stuff relayed by ham radio is miles ahead in accuracy compared to what comes out from the mass media. 4) One can alraady work stations down to the noise floor. Actually, I've had many RTTY contacts below the noise floor by augmenting the print with aural copy of calls/reports. In other words, all the extra baggage (bandwidth) is generally just extra weight with no robust benefit. Sure some selected applications may need it. Until we find a way to access extra frequency blocks in some parallel universe, narrower is better. Unfortunately, a lot (but not all) of the hype about emergency communications is just a smoke screen to forward particular personal agendas. If ham radio existed to keep the price of pork high, you'd have people saying their invention does that too. It is interesting to note that so much of this stuff is hyped as THE ANSWER to emergency communications. I see the same claim by the AMSAT people and many other groups for their modes (e.g. D*). Of course each isn't. Each is one of many possibilities. The more obsure you make the mode, the fewer people will be proficient at its use. The smaller the pool of emergency repsonders we would have. Hype isn't the answer to expanding the pool. It's got to be accepted by a wide swath of users. It has to age for many years in the pot of real experience. Instead we're seeing the digital flavor of the week. I guess after 40 years of hype for various hame radio adgendas, I've grown tired of hearing them, become a skeptic and rather cynical of new and improved. How about a shift in paradigm? Look around and see what modes most people use and adopt that? It doesn't have to be just digital! Wouldn't that provide the largest possible pool of responders and equipment? Realize that our contribuition is for the window of time between time zero of an event until when the official channels get running. One is dealing with maximizing the probability of having trained ham radio personnel and equipment actually at or near a particular location. It seems that big numbers matter. Interesting comment about the usage of digital freq's there. The PSK area of the digital 20M band is absolutely wall to wall with stations over here. 40M is similarly crowded especially at night with PSK and RTTY. I can't imagine trying to use a wide IF filter on 40M for any digital mode. 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Lindecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Brian and all, I don't think there is to compare RTTY with ALE400. The objectives are really different and there is nothing common. ALE and ALE400 permits a rich system of communications with different possibilities (see my paper ALE and ALE400 easy). Without speaking of PC ALE and Mars ALE which offer really a lot of interesting possibilities. Neither ALE nor ALE400 have for objectives to replace RTTY. The huge advantage of RTTY is to be simple and universal, but that's all. RTTY technology is old. His performance is very poor. The bandwidth is not optimized (for optimized RTTY, choose RTTY with 23 Hz of shift). However, it matches very well quick QSO in contest. Necessarily, modern modes will need more bandwidth because: * you need to code your data (to finally gain in the minimum S/N), * more bandwidth permits a diversity in frequency which helps to make the transmission robust (in general all modern modes as MFSK16, Olivia, ALE have a diversity in time and in frequency). About the bands crowded. For this side of the ocean, the digital bands don't seem very crowded except during contests. It seems there are widely enough room for 400 Hz bandwidth transmissions. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Brian A To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 1:29 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ALE400 - Narrow band ALE mode now available I'm not trying to be a pain in the butt, honest. If one put ALE400 and RTTY side by side for the average ham ALE-400 would be a hard sell. Same speed in twice the bandwidth. I guess one may conclude all
[digitalradio] Re: ALE400 Narrow band ALE mode now available
I'm not trying to be a pain in the butt, honest. If one put ALE400 and RTTY side by side for the average ham ALE-400 would be a hard sell. Same speed in twice the bandwidth. I guess one may conclude all the bells and whistles of ALE, ARQ etc are doubling the bandwidth requirements. One can copy RTTY with a 200 HZ filter. I doubt one can do the same with ALE-400. Are the benefits really worth doubling the bandwidth? Put another way, halving the number of stations possible for a given band. Perhaps so, but certainly only for a narrow slice of the ham hobbiest needs. We need narrower bandwidths not wider bandwidths for real progress with the real life crowded bands. I think that is why PSK has worked so well. Anybody pushing for wider bandwidths seems to be swimming against the current. I want to point out the old fashioned analog mode of SSB this weekend had at least one station making 10,000 DX QSO's in a 48 hour period. This was the bottom of the sunspot cycle with incredible QRM. It just seems to me that to replace existing technology, the newer stuff has to be able to do all the old technology could do and much more in the same or less bandwidth. I'm not seeing this in these digital modes. Yep, laws of physics do tend to get in the way. Those interested in what can be done if the bandwidth were available should read the proceedings of the AMSAT meeting held this month in Pittburgh. They are talking about a geosyncronous satellite with 6MHz of bandwidth available. Supposedly being able to be reached with 5 watts and a 60cm dish. They think this is the future of emergency communications. 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is your point? LA5VNA Setinar Brian A skrev: So one gets the 60wpm of 170Hz shift RTTY for a 400 Hz bandwidth? 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Mark Thompson wb9qzb@ wrote: ALE400 Narrow band ALE mode now available Patrick F6CTE has announced that a narrow band version of the popular Automatic Link Establishment (ALE) software is now available. On the HFLink Yahoo group he writes: For those interested in doing ALE and ARQ FAE using a narrow bandwidth (400 Hz), I have derived from the standard ALE a new ALE with a bandwidth of 400 Hz (instead of 2000 Hz) and which is called 'ALE400'. This ALE system has exactly the same functions as the standard ALE (in Multipsk) except that the: bandwidth is 400 Hz (so ALE400 can be used where 500 Hz modes are permitted) the speed (and consequently the text throughput) is 2.5 slower, no fix frequency (it is as MFSK16, Olivia or DominoEX modes) the S/N is 5 dB better: - 9 dB for AMD messages and Unproto - 11.5 dB (- 13.5 dB with many repetitions) for ARQ FAE For ARQ FAE, it has been added a compression system using a modified IZ8BLY (Nino) MFSK Varicode. So the text throughput (in ALE400) is typically 60 wpm (up to 107 mpm in bilateral and 63 characters frames). This test version in a ZIP test package is available in my site http://f6cte.free.fr/MULTIPSK_TEST_28_10_2007.ZIP http://f6cte.free.fr/MULTIPSK_TEST_28_10_2007.ZIP (copy and paste this address in Internet Explorer (or equivalent) Net address field). It contains the Multipsk test version, the help files (in English and French) and the specifications (in English) of the ARQ FAE mode (version 1.4). Create a temporary folder (C:\TEST, for example), unzip the files in it and start C:\TEST\TEST\Multipsk.exe (the auxiliary files will be created automatically). For the contextual help, click on the right button of the mouse, with the focus over the mode button ALE400. Use also the button hints (wait a fraction of second over a button). Hints: if you are the Master (initiator of the CQ): confirm the RS ID transmission in Options (to permit an automatic tuning for other Hams), check Master on the Mode panel and, afterwards, push the button CQ if you are the Slave (the Ham who answers): push the button RS ID detection (to permit your automatic tuning on CQ), check Slave on the Mode panel and, afterwards, push the button Answer. Both will push on the AFC button. Note: it rings on successful connexion (on both sides). 73 Patrick Related URL's HFLink Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HFLink http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HFLink HFLink http://www.hflink.org/ http://www.hflink.org/ MultiPSK Website http://f6cte.free.fr/ http://f6cte.free.fr/ ALE400 Software - A Test version has been available at http://f6cte.free.fr/MULTIPSK_TEST_28_10_2007.ZIP http://f6cte.free.fr/MULTIPSK_TEST_28_10_2007.ZIP but like all test software it could be frequently updated. __ Do You
[digitalradio] Re: ALE400 Narrow band ALE mode now available
So one gets the 60wpm of 170Hz shift RTTY for a 400 Hz bandwidth? 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Mark Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ALE400 Narrow band ALE mode now available Patrick F6CTE has announced that a narrow band version of the popular Automatic Link Establishment (ALE) software is now available. On the HFLink Yahoo group he writes: For those interested in doing ALE and ARQ FAE using a narrow bandwidth (400 Hz), I have derived from the standard ALE a new ALE with a bandwidth of 400 Hz (instead of 2000 Hz) and which is called 'ALE400'. This ALE system has exactly the same functions as the standard ALE (in Multipsk) except that the: bandwidth is 400 Hz (so ALE400 can be used where 500 Hz modes are permitted) the speed (and consequently the text throughput) is 2.5 slower, no fix frequency (it is as MFSK16, Olivia or DominoEX modes) the S/N is 5 dB better: - 9 dB for AMD messages and Unproto - 11.5 dB (- 13.5 dB with many repetitions) for ARQ FAE For ARQ FAE, it has been added a compression system using a modified IZ8BLY (Nino) MFSK Varicode. So the text throughput (in ALE400) is typically 60 wpm (up to 107 mpm in bilateral and 63 characters frames). This test version in a ZIP test package is available in my site http://f6cte.free.fr/MULTIPSK_TEST_28_10_2007.ZIP (copy and paste this address in Internet Explorer (or equivalent) Net address field). It contains the Multipsk test version, the help files (in English and French) and the specifications (in English) of the ARQ FAE mode (version 1.4). Create a temporary folder (C:\TEST, for example), unzip the files in it and start C:\TEST\TEST\Multipsk.exe (the auxiliary files will be created automatically). For the contextual help, click on the right button of the mouse, with the focus over the mode button ALE400. Use also the button hints (wait a fraction of second over a button). Hints: if you are the Master (initiator of the CQ): confirm the RS ID transmission in Options (to permit an automatic tuning for other Hams), check Master on the Mode panel and, afterwards, push the button CQ if you are the Slave (the Ham who answers): push the button RS ID detection (to permit your automatic tuning on CQ), check Slave on the Mode panel and, afterwards, push the button Answer. Both will push on the AFC button. Note: it rings on successful connexion (on both sides). 73 Patrick Related URL's HFLink Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HFLink HFLink http://www.hflink.org/ MultiPSK Website http://f6cte.free.fr/ ALE400 Software - A Test version has been available at http://f6cte.free.fr/MULTIPSK_TEST_28_10_2007.ZIP but like all test software it could be frequently updated. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[digitalradio] Re: JT65 / WSTJ / USB SignaLink
Hello again, Yes, I did reset the settings. I have the audio in set for 3 and the audio out set to 7. I have the PTT com port blank. I now get a display and a waterfall, but am not able to key up the TS-2000. Any further suggestions? And, most grateful for your help!!! 73 de KC9HEK Brian --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did you try to change the requested input and output settings to those that match the USB audio codec ? Change the settings in options in the main WSJT area. On 10/28/07, Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Andy, thank you for getting back to me. Ok, I think I'm starting to get the idea. I can't cut and paste the text from the DOS window, but could certainly post a screen shot of it. But in summary here is what I've got: First I have an error reading wsjt.ini and continuuing with defaults. Next I have a message ID Interval 10 This sequence is repeated a second time. Then I have a message Using PortAudio followed by a table. I am not sure how this table will come accross in this message but here is a try: Audio Device Input Output Name 0 2 0 Micorsoft Sound Mapper-Input 1 2 0 Realtec HD Audio Rear Input 2 1 0 Modem #2 Line Record 3 2 0 USB Audio Codec 4 0 2 Microsoft Sound Mapper Output 5 0 2 Realtec HD Audio rear output 6 0 1 Modem #2 Line Playback 7 0 2 USB Audio CODEC Default Input:0 Output:4 Requested Input:0 Output:0 Opening devise 0 for input, 4 for output. Audio streams running normally. I need to point out that the Realtec is the internal sound card and the USB Audio Codec is the SignaLink sound card. I hope this will be able to help you point me in the right direction. Thank you, 73 de KC9HEK Brian --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio% 40yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien andrewobrie@ wrote: In the WSJT dos-type window that boots up, what do your device settings say ? On 10/28/07, Brian kc9hek@ wrote: Good afternoon folks, I have recently downloaded the WSTJ software for use with JT65. I have also read the very well done Bozo's Guide. (Thank you.) That said, I am unable to get the software configured properly. I have been running the more common digital modes for almost two years. I rountinly uses MultiPSK and DM780 using my existing configuration. Basically, I have HRD deluxe connected to my TS- 2000 on Com Port 1. I have the SignaLink USB connected to the 13 pin Aux on the TS-2000. In both DM780 and MultiPSK the sound card inititates the transmit signal. In both of these other softwares, I can also choose which sound card to use and have identified the SignaLink as the appropriate sound card. When trying to get WSTJ to run, I have gone into my Audio Properties (Windows XP PRO) and have made the SignaLink my default sound card with no success. I suspect my setup isn't all that uncommon and that I am missing something very simple and obvious. If someone could help me out, it would be most appreciated. Thank you in advance, 73 de KC9HEK Brian -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ) -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
[digitalradio] Re: JT65 / WSTJ / USB SignaLink
Hello again, Yes, I did reset the settings. I have the audio in set for 3 and the audio out set to 7. I have the PTT com port blank. I now get a display and a waterfall, but am not able to key up the TS-2000. Any further suggestions? And, most grateful for your help!!! 73 de KC9HEK Brian --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did you try to change the requested input and output settings to those that match the USB audio codec ? Change the settings in options in the main WSJT area. On 10/28/07, Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Andy, thank you for getting back to me. Ok, I think I'm starting to get the idea. I can't cut and paste the text from the DOS window, but could certainly post a screen shot of it. But in summary here is what I've got: First I have an error reading wsjt.ini and continuuing with defaults. Next I have a message ID Interval 10 This sequence is repeated a second time. Then I have a message Using PortAudio followed by a table. I am not sure how this table will come accross in this message but here is a try: Audio Device Input Output Name 0 2 0 Micorsoft Sound Mapper-Input 1 2 0 Realtec HD Audio Rear Input 2 1 0 Modem #2 Line Record 3 2 0 USB Audio Codec 4 0 2 Microsoft Sound Mapper Output 5 0 2 Realtec HD Audio rear output 6 0 1 Modem #2 Line Playback 7 0 2 USB Audio CODEC Default Input:0 Output:4 Requested Input:0 Output:0 Opening devise 0 for input, 4 for output. Audio streams running normally. I need to point out that the Realtec is the internal sound card and the USB Audio Codec is the SignaLink sound card. I hope this will be able to help you point me in the right direction. Thank you, 73 de KC9HEK Brian --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio% 40yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien andrewobrie@ wrote: In the WSJT dos-type window that boots up, what do your device settings say ? On 10/28/07, Brian kc9hek@ wrote: Good afternoon folks, I have recently downloaded the WSTJ software for use with JT65. I have also read the very well done Bozo's Guide. (Thank you.) That said, I am unable to get the software configured properly. I have been running the more common digital modes for almost two years. I rountinly uses MultiPSK and DM780 using my existing configuration. Basically, I have HRD deluxe connected to my TS- 2000 on Com Port 1. I have the SignaLink USB connected to the 13 pin Aux on the TS-2000. In both DM780 and MultiPSK the sound card inititates the transmit signal. In both of these other softwares, I can also choose which sound card to use and have identified the SignaLink as the appropriate sound card. When trying to get WSTJ to run, I have gone into my Audio Properties (Windows XP PRO) and have made the SignaLink my default sound card with no success. I suspect my setup isn't all that uncommon and that I am missing something very simple and obvious. If someone could help me out, it would be most appreciated. Thank you in advance, 73 de KC9HEK Brian -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ) -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
[digitalradio] Re: JT65 / WSTJ / USB SignaLink
Hello Andy, thank you for getting back to me. Ok, I think I'm starting to get the idea. I can't cut and paste the text from the DOS window, but could certainly post a screen shot of it. But in summary here is what I've got: First I have an error reading wsjt.ini and continuuing with defaults. Next I have a message ID Interval 10 This sequence is repeated a second time. Then I have a message Using PortAudio followed by a table. I am not sure how this table will come accross in this message but here is a try: Audio Device Input Output Name 0 2 0 Micorsoft Sound Mapper-Input 1 2 0 Realtec HD Audio Rear Input 2 1 0 Modem #2 Line Record 3 2 0 USB Audio Codec 4 0 2 Microsoft Sound Mapper Output 5 0 2 Realtec HD Audio rear output 6 0 1 Modem #2 Line Playback 7 0 2 USB Audio CODEC Default Input:0 Output:4 Requested Input:0 Output:0 Opening devise 0 for input, 4 for output. Audio streams running normally. I need to point out that the Realtec is the internal sound card and the USB Audio Codec is the SignaLink sound card. I hope this will be able to help you point me in the right direction. Thank you, 73 de KC9HEK Brian --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the WSJT dos-type window that boots up, what do your device settings say ? On 10/28/07, Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good afternoon folks, I have recently downloaded the WSTJ software for use with JT65. I have also read the very well done Bozo's Guide. (Thank you.) That said, I am unable to get the software configured properly. I have been running the more common digital modes for almost two years. I rountinly uses MultiPSK and DM780 using my existing configuration. Basically, I have HRD deluxe connected to my TS- 2000 on Com Port 1. I have the SignaLink USB connected to the 13 pin Aux on the TS-2000. In both DM780 and MultiPSK the sound card inititates the transmit signal. In both of these other softwares, I can also choose which sound card to use and have identified the SignaLink as the appropriate sound card. When trying to get WSTJ to run, I have gone into my Audio Properties (Windows XP PRO) and have made the SignaLink my default sound card with no success. I suspect my setup isn't all that uncommon and that I am missing something very simple and obvious. If someone could help me out, it would be most appreciated. Thank you in advance, 73 de KC9HEK Brian -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
[digitalradio] Re: QSO or QRM? ...or Contest?
Luc, Guess what? Contesters work during the week too. Many have weekends only for radio. So you get them engaged in their favorite activity on weekends. Why is this hard to understand? They don't complain about the QRM but rather accept it as a challenge to overcome. I suspect this is also why CW/SSB and RTTY are preferred contest modes. There is a good chance for the human operator to make a difference and pull stations out of the QRM. They get really good at it too. You'll also find that these op's are quite technically savy and know propogation. Most of this is derived from years of station building and operating under highly variable radio conditions. Many of these guys run two radios simultaneously copying stations of one radio in the right ear and one in the left ear. Many can maintain rates of almost 200 QSO's/hour for hours at at time. This is why they are considered good operators. BTW: I'm not convinced the advanced digital modes allow for the operator to make any difference in copy-- at least not to the huge degree it is possible with analog modes. 30M, 17M, 12M are contest free zones. I can't answer the age old question why people engage in activites because they are hard but it is human nature. It is a heck of a lot easier to scale the 200' hill nearby than climbing Everest. Some choose Everest. A note of caution to those trying to develop the next digital killer ap. Be careful what you wish for. Assume you are successful and all hams switch over. You'll have the contest QRM environment to deal with. The will no little islands for protection left. 73 de Brian/K3KO Yet, contesters creating maximum QRM are exalted as champions and Great Operators by the ham magazines and organizations. Why is a little QRM is bad, but vast and continuous QRM is wonderful? As quite an avid (and now reformed) contester myself, I'm very curious about this phenomena. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: Modes the work with SSB splatter
I want to point out that 7070 and the surrounds are part of the phone band in Europe and elsewhere(e.g. Canada). It has been that way long before any of these digital modes existed. It isn't just contests. It is a very popular spot day in and day out. The BC stations in EU from 7100 up make that part of their phone allocation impossible to use. It might be argued by the SSB guys that the digital mode doesn't belong there. 40 M allocations have been screwed up since forever due to broadcast interests and ham radio interests colliding. 73 de Brian/K3KO -- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Clearly, the 7070 watering hole is used 24/7 by narrow PSK31 stations as long as the band is open. The contester can unfortunately use SSB voice in that part of the band. He may not have known or cared that this is about the hottest digital area on 40 meters, but of course the PSK31 stations were there first. He may have been on earlier and the propagation could have changed. But probably not as he seemed to come out of nowhere and then got no response and gave up after a while. The other stations were higher in frequency and I could not be sure of the language. It sounded like French but perhaps a Caribbean patois? Because of the type of smearing modulation from SSB, I have come to the conclusion that bandwidth is not a good way to segregate signals. The mode really does need to be taken into consideration. 73, Rick, KV9U Jose A. Amador wrote: Who showed up first? I believe that on the light of the previous discussions, PJ2/WK4Y came first, he should not have been QRM'd with PSK, MFSK or whatever, and all activity should have stopped until that spectrum chunk was cleared, as SSB is authorized on those frequencies in this part of the world. So, PJ2/WK4Y was hidden to K1CRU but not to KV9U. PJ2/WK4Y should have not been willfully interfered, according to Part 97.101something... If the situation happened to be the contrary, someone should have plugged his microphone, fired up on LSB, and warned PJ2/WK4Y that the frequency was already in use in PSK, MFSK or Olivia. I am afraid that something does not fit...and not only with robots. A theory, in practice, may prove to be more complicated than the same theory, in theory. 73, Jose, CO2JA PS: Don't try to convince me of what is allowed and not, I know that the allowed modes do not match up in the States and down in the Caribbean. I am just taking adventage of the example posted. Life is certainly richer than we may imagine at a given moment. I am not looking forward to any further discussions or accusations. This is just food for thought.
[digitalradio] Re: Let me understand
Alan, Your post just shows how people are missing the point. Just who is going to be able to copy D*? I wouldn't bet my life on D* communications. Would you? Too few people able to copy it. I might change my mind in 10 years but for now it's a fringe mode. One needs emergency communications modes that can be copied by just about anybody. 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan NV8A [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/18/07 12:01 pm Brian A wrote: The digital systems being proposed for emergency use require a rig with antenna, a computer with soundcard and functional software. Also an operator trained with the protocol in use. Right? My perception of emergency situations is that just having a rig/antenna available and working may be no small task. Throw in the need for the a working computer, sound card and and software and you're adversely affecting your ability to respond? Seems like that to me. The more parts required, the less chance they will all work. The more power used as well. What about the guy in the field with an HT? Where does he fit in? Certainly you don't expect him to be digital. Icom makes at least one dual-band D-Star-capable HT. I think the model# is IC-91AD. I must be missing something... My perception is that the most reliable and practical system must be a minimialistic one in terms of parts and complexity. 73 Alan NV8A
[digitalradio] Let me understand
The digital systems being proposed for emergency use require a rig with antenna, a computer with soundcard and functional software. Also an operator trained with the protocol in use. Right? My perception of emergency situations is that just having a rig/antenna available and working may be no small task. Throw in the need for the a working computer, sound card and and software and you're adversely affecting your ability to respond? Seems like that to me. The more parts required, the less chance they will all work. The more power used as well. What about the guy in the field with an HT? Where does he fit in? Certainly you don't expect him to be digital. I must be missing something... My perception is that the most reliable and practical system must be a minimialistic one in terms of parts and complexity. 73 de Brian/K3KO
[digitalradio] Re: Is HF emergency communication really viable?
This definition says all the past HF emergency communications were useless and might as well never have been attempted. New and different doesn't always mean better or more useful. Emergency communications always boils down to using whatever is available and whatever works under the circumstances. This really requires depth in the number available modes and frequencies. Pinning all your communications hopes on one mode is a recipe for failure. Things never go as planned. The strength in emergency communications will always come from skilled operators. 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is HF emergency communication really viable? For HF emergency communication to be taken seriously, it must be able to make the call or send a message without prior notice, at any time of the day or night. That was the opening statement of the ALE presentation at the Global Amateur Radio Emergency Communications Conference in August 2007. View the presentation: http://hflink.com/garec Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: Tests in ARQ FAE
Hi Roger. That was good info. Sounds like it wasn't and couldn't be automatic operation. Operator intervention really needed. It is too bad they didn't try holding the ALE tests this weekend on 20M. It would have been instructive to know just how well that mode managed in combat conditions. RTTY held out well. Preliminary reports indicate over at least 500,000 RTTY QSO's through the din. 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Roger J. Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Demetre SV1UY wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Brian A alsopb@ 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, with no human factor strengths added. Is that realistic to expect on the ham bands? 73 de Brian/K3KO I'm afraid that only PACTOR 2 or 3 has any chance of making it through these conditions OM. Everything else fails. Actually, I had Olivia and PSK QSOs through the RTTY QRM this weekend. By judicious use of the narrow filters a nd IF Shift/Width controls, I was quite able to work through even severe QRM, where RTTY stations would start transmitting nearly on top of us. de Roger W6VZV
[digitalradio] Re: jt65a is an automatic mode
Roger, The real thing that gets in my craw about JT65 is the 60 second continuous transmissions for each QSO segment. On HF, this could surely be reduced to 30 seconds or less. I've yet to have really weak ones reply that would have needed the long decode period. I understand the need for really weak VHF sigs. 6 or 7 minutes to make a single QSO is excessive on HF. Reducing the periods to 30 seconds would make QSO length more reasonable and reduce QRM chances. 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Roger J. Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 ghastly prescription for useless QRM. de Roger W6VZV
[digitalradio] Re: Best digital modes for portable QRP
CW. No computer needed. Also when you're operating QRP you need a large number of potential stations to work. I really pitty the portable QRP station with a budipole antenna trying to work the small handfull of stations he might hear on an oddball digital mode. You might just as well leave the rig and computer at home. 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Olivia. Andy K3UK On 9/14/07, newdendrite [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm very much a newcomer to digital modes, so please pardon this question. I'm interested in designing a QRP rig that uses digital modes for portable operation in the field, much like the KX-1 and ATS do for CW. Other that PSK31, which digital modes are best suited for this type of operation? Thanks, Mike KD4SGN -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
[digitalradio] Re: PC Monitors for ham use?
Rick, I am really bothered by loosing still more lines of text with these wide screen beasties. The present OS's are like Stephen Kings Langoliers. They eat away at available screen real estate. Any way to turn them 90 degrees and also rotate the windows display screen so that a full page can be displayed? Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have seen some multi screen shacks. In fact, I think one ham has 5 screens for various functions, some of which are dual screens with one computer. My idea was to keep things a bit simpler so I wanted only one screen that was at the right distance for my limited eyesight accommodation. In fact, I have some computer glasses which have a large upper area set to the screen distance and the lower for reading distance. It makes a huge difference for me compared to trying to see the screen with the center of my trifocals. Progressive lenses have a very small sweet spot for a given distance so I have not gone that route either. My 22 Samsung 225BW works well with either Windows XP or Vista as long as you insure that the screen is connected to and turned on when you boot up the computer as it has to detect and set the screen parameters. Otherwise, it can look as bad as it does with Linux OS and that is completely unacceptable to me. Other advantages of a large widescreen is the ability to play widescreen movies to match the screen size (larger) and it makes it easier to bring up two documents you are working between and drag and drop as needed. The one downside is that you don't necessarily have more real estate to work with, it is just wider and because of that, you make not see as many lines of text in a document as you would with a 4:3 monitor. As you probably have noticed, almost all the monitors sold now are widescreen. Same trend with notebook computers. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: Any thoughts on a wide screen PC monitor versus a standard screen? I'm thinking of adding a 21 inch wide screen. Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] Re: PC Monitors for ham use?
Rick, Tnx info. Large than life size is good. Bifocals are bad. Computer glasses are always lost. Given the demographics of our society, such a larger than life full page display would be welcome by many. 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Brian, If you are using a large size monitor, you won't really lose a lot of text since the monitor screen real estate is physically larger than many of the smaller 4:3 monitors. Compare a 19 4:3 running at 1280x1024, to a 22 wide screen 16:9 which typically runs 1680x1050. Your vertical is still larger than the previous monitor although I think there could be a smaller size pixel. Of course, one thing you can not do with LCD monitors is make the fonts larger by using a smaller resolution like we did with CRT monitors. And the operating system drivers must be able to handle the widescreen monitor. This should be no problem with MS products but my experience with Linux has been very disappointing. [As I side note, the latest 7.10 Kubuntu, Tribe 4 (or 5?) that I downloaded today still does not support the Samsung 205/225 SyncMasters.] I am thankful that we can use the control - plus and minus keys to temporarily adjust font size in many documents as I have difficulty with some smaller fonts. Some monitors are intended to rotate sideways and you could use them to view a full document, however, I wonder if the 22 size monitors would be excessively large unless you wanted to see the entire page larger than lifesize? The real estate on my 22 monitor is 11 3/4 high and 18 1/2 inches wide. This enables me to place two pages side by side at almost full size and view most of both pages. I wish this had been available in the past when I used to be a consultant who did a fair amount of document development and needed to compare docs and cut and paste, etc. 73, Rick, KV9U Brian A wrote: Rick, I am really bothered by loosing still more lines of text with these wide screen beasties. The present OS's are like Stephen Kings Langoliers. They eat away at available screen real estate. Any way to turn them 90 degrees and also rotate the windows display screen so that a full page can be displayed? Brian/K3KO
[digitalradio] Re: help for setting pcale with FT1000 MP mark V
Of course, if you don't have a spare RS232 port then CAT contol is obviously better. At least for PSK, I found the CAT control on the MP to work just fine. I question the timing conclusion. Anybody who has tried using RS232 ports or LPT's for sending CW knows the highly buffered environment in XP and VISTA screws up the timing. We're talking way more than 10 ms delays and timing inaccuracies. People have gotten around this in XP by a program called DLPORT which allows direct port writes like one could do in older OS's. Another solution has been to use WINKEY instead of generating CW within the computer. One sends out an ASCII character via a port and the WINKEY PIC generates the perfect CW character. In effect it is a CW TNC. That's real progress! Instead of just turning on and off an external line at prescribed times one has to resort to such nonsense. Anyhow the software/hardware out there should be working on USB interfaces rather than COM port interfaces. USB/com port intefaces have been problematic with RTTY due to the slow baud rate. I assume the same would be true for these modes. Obviously rig control for most present generation rigs has to be over COM's. Most USB/COM port converters work OK for rig control. However, the same timing problems most likely exist. I simply don't know if USB timing suffers from the above timing problems or not. Perhaps so. But for computers with no COM ports, USB is the way to go. The problem is that a real time operating system is needed when timing is critical. 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Simon Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chiming in here: no delays, less to go wrong. Also a *lot* easier for the poor old programmer. Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: Jon Maguire [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can you give a rundown as why dedicated PTT is better than CAT PTT? Thank you.
[digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought
Erik, It's call competition. Apparently, you are not aware that DXpeditions have thousands of stations calling them at the same time. The minimum power necessary INCLUDES trying to get through the din. The recent BS7H operators described what they heard in their RX's as a freight train continuously for the many days of their operation. They also were in a region of the world which experiences widespread thunderstorms. This also added to their difficulty in in copying stations. Just because the DXpedition runs 10 watts and people hear them, it doesn't mean the DXpedition will be able to copy a 10 watt signal through the pileup spread out over 10-30 KHz. The reception has to be two way. (The reason why he can be heard is split frequency operation . The DX station transmits on one frequency and the pile up is on other frequencies.) Do you really think they can ask for and police: We work only stations with 100 watts? 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 of 2x to 3x tx bandwidth will capture all of the signal. Note this filter must be within the AGC loop or you must turn the AGC off and use the RF gain control to avoid distortion. External audio filters and may 'DSP' filter rigs are outside of the AGC loop. Get a 200Hz IF filter any you will be pleasantly surprised how many of the so called problems disappear. Now for the real issue. It is one of common courtesy. Trying to operate to minimize others problems. You do see the problem, though. One wants to work DX, thus he CQ's at maximum power available to him. What is the minimum power necessary for the CQ? de K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, list email filter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know I started this thread with the idea of dividing contest points by power output, I did choose the word silly in the subject intentionally, but, the real problem is that there is a ssb contesting mindset that is filtering over into common usage. Yesterday there was a station, over 800 miles away from me, taking out my entire waterfall (no contest on, and the station he was working wasn't DX, or a rare county/grid square, in fact it was a casual rag chew). I was running DM780 in SuperBrowser mode, and 'reading the mail', following about 10 qso's at the same time, I'm certain I could have shifted away and filtered him out, but then I'd only be able to print a couple of the ongoing qso's I'd been monitoring. At any rate this gentleman was running his brag macro, a 4 element beam at over 100 feet (and no, I was no where close to being on a direct line between the stations)... I immediately went into personal fantasy mode, imagining what I could do with such an antenna, lets just say that with an antenna like that, when running psk, the biggest power draw in my shack would probably be the rotor... anyway, this op went on to explain/complain that he couldn't really get any power out of his linear, as he couldn't feed it with any more than 40 watts without distorting (goodness knows what his output power was, but I'm guessing that if his tower were any shorter, his neighbors would get their fluorescent lighting for free). This was the point where I decided to go mow the lawn. As to the physics of more power on successful qso'ing, perhaps it is more important to consider the 'physics' of afsk and sharing the ssb audio passband of the average ham rig with a dozen or more signals. The key word here is 'sharing', and the problem is that with the growing popularity of digital modes, especially those that can 'get through' in the doldrums of the solar cycle, there are too many high power ssb stations out there that run in a 'I've got a linear and its my given right to use it, take no prisoners, me first' mindset, and it wrecks the experience for the rest of us who have to 'share' with them. Lets not forget that the 'cool' thing about psk31, is that it is narrow and fast enough for casual keyboard to keyboard ops. By its very nature, it plays well with others in a confined space. Your signal may only be 31Hz wide on the waterfall, but if you cancels out everything else 1.5KHz wide on either side of it, you are really occupying 3KHz not 31Hz, aren't you? I would propose that considerate narrow band digital operators boycott qso's with any operators running needlessly excessive power. As they say, we are known by the company we keep. These operators are not ignorant, they know what they are doing to others on the band, and they don't care (this is, by the way, the very definition of being both inconsiderate and rude). I honestly think the only way to correct their perception and operating practices is to ignore them.
[digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought
Erik, As Dr. Phil says: How's that working for you? You practically speaking can only change your response to something you don't like. 73 de K3KO FINI I'm operating under the more hostile and combative operating conditions, i.e. in the middle of a contest, or if I decide I just have to park myself next to a dx feeding frenzy. The problem is I think that kind of operating should be the exception to the rule, unfortunately, it seems it is becoming standard operating procedure. I also maintain that the operators running 100's of watts when 20 or less would do, are violating both the FCC rules (for US operators), and the basic spirit of ham radio. 73, Erik
[digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought.
Guys: I have found that *MANY*, but not all, so-called Wide signals on PSK modes are caused by several things being overlooked at the *RECEIVE* end of the QSO. If adjusted properly, most newer radios should handle 50-100W signals providing of course that the transmitted signal is indeed clean to start with. There are indeed plenty of bad signals on the air, but just running higher powers, or big antennas is not the cause by itself. Try to: Turn of AGC if possible, use RF gain to adjust signals. This will allow your receiver to have greater dynamic range. Use a Notch filter if available. Turn off the preamp, switch in the attenuator, especially on bands below about 30M. If the above doesn't work, try a better sound card. When strong signals are encountered, this is where the more inexpensive models start to fold up. Why is that folks will spend many thousands on a fine rig, only to use a $15 sound card? In Digital modes, the sound card is an integral part of the RX chain. Please realize that distortion can occur in either the TX or the *RX* of any signal. Many hams don't realize that this basic fact about analog signals. Typically, in many cases, the cause of a wide appearing signal is in the transmitter. I get wide reports frequently. However, I monitor my output with a spectrum analyzer, and have done on the air tests to confirm that my signal is not running worse than -20 IMD, often much better than that. In fact it usually runs better than -25 DB. I run the SDR-1000 software defined radio at 5W (well below the 100W rating), a D-44 professional sound card, and an Ameritron ALS-500M amplifier (rated at 600W out) to get 50 -100W out. This is much more power than most PSK signals, so my signal tends to be much stronger, especially on bands where I use my 55' high beams. You drop any signal down, either by reducing he RF gain, or putting in some attenuation, or even a notch filter is you have that capability. This distortion occurs most often as you might expect in low end sound cards, like those installed on mother boards etc. I don't wish to start any wars, just want you to understand some of the other possible causes of these stronger signals. Sorry guys, I don't see why any operator should apologize for having a strong, but clean signal. Brian K7RE
[digitalradio] JT65A HF query/observations
I've been playing around with this on 20M. The new version which does the decoding starting at 48 seconds is a big help. Of the the 25 contacts I've made all were clearly audible. All could have been worked on CW with no difficulty. They could have been worked on PSK or other such modes too--much more quickly. Most came from answers to my CQ's. Is this the experience of others? So what is the benefit on HF? I clearly don't see this as being the future of HF ham radio. It isn't the killer ap. (I'm sure the MS, moonbounce and VHF capabilities are great and that was the original design objective) I'm a bit perplexed that stations which are S6 and above show up at -6db or so on the display. I know what it is editing. It is a pretty useless number to most users. What I want to know is: how far below the current noise floor is the signal that I'm now working. It would seem that such a below the noise number could be determined and editied. Isn't this what all users (HF and V/UHF) want to know? 73 de Brian/K3KO
[digitalradio] Re: JT65A HF query/observations
Let me play devil's advocate. Regarding HF JT65A operation in practice in the presence of the usual atmospherics. If I can't hear a signal, chances are near zero that it will be found tuning about the band by looking at the waterfalls. One almost needs to sked such difficult paths. You have to know he's going to be there before looking. OK but much different from the normal HF mentality of tuning for random QSO's. So you have to depend upon the other guy hearing/seeing your CQ to establish one of these random marginal QSO's. But all things being equal, he likewise won't find you at random for the same reasons. I was just wondering how many of these random really weak signal contacts actually occur on HF. Like I said in my case it has been zero. 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All good comments. I agree with Danny AND Rick. I think I can safely say that this group is responsible for the sudden explosion of JT65A activity on HF, remember it is just one month old as a common HF mode. I'm perplexed too, I can find JT65A activity almost 24 hours per day but rarely hear ALE and Olivia these days. I hear Hell and MFSK16 but not as much as JT65A, by a big margin. As Danny correctly identified , JT65A, is simply amazing for extra weak signal detection. Actually, I am not sure if it's the mode or just the WSJT software, maybe the combination. I think however, that if someone like Patrick developed software that would perform Olivia , ALE, DominoEx, etc , etc...in the same manner as WSJT, hams would use it . Thus, I think we have found that many hams enjoy a software product that enables precisely timed beacons with simple responses to validate reception and a legitimate exchange. In summary, JT65AWSJT performs well under weak conditions and the timing divisions are attractive to experimenting hams. Give the same ability to Olivia and Dominoex, easily, and I am sure use of those modes would increase. Andy K3UK On 5/30/07, Danny Douglas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The excitement of using the JT65 program on HF is NOT for those signals you can clearly hear and probably operate with another mode, but for those times that the propagation shows not to be there, you dont hear anything but possibly a slight raise in static on a band, etc. Then you can put this mode up, leave it alone, and see what pops out. Its for playing not really trying to communicate. FYI if anyone in P5 wants to work it, plse do so. Whether we can hear you or not, we will be there. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] digital_modes%40yahoogroups.com moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] mrfarm%40frontiernet.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 8:58 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] JT65A HF query/observations I too have been perplexed why these modes that were developed for weak signals on VHF and above and only have the most meager rudimentary exchange, would have any value on HF, relative to already existing weak signal modes. Perhaps because it seemed new, some focused on trying it out? What I still would like to see is a sound card ARQ modes that is scaleable in speed and also can work with weak signals, QSB, etc. 73, Rick, KV9U Brian A wrote: I've been playing around with this on 20M. The new version which does the decoding starting at 48 seconds is a big help. Of the the 25 contacts I've made all were clearly audible. All could have been worked on CW with no difficulty. They could have been worked on PSK or other such modes too--much more quickly. Most came from answers to my CQ's. Is this the experience of others? So what is the benefit on HF? I clearly don't see this as being the future of HF ham radio. It isn't the killer ap. (I'm sure the MS, moonbounce and VHF capabilities are great and that was the original design objective) I'm a bit perplexed that stations which are S6 and above show up at -6db or so on the display. I know what it is editing. It is a pretty useless number to most users. What I want to know is: how far below the current noise floor is the signal that I'm now working. It would seem that such a below the noise number could be determined and editied. Isn't this what all users (HF and V/UHF) want to know? 73 de Brian/K3KO Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php Yahoo! Groups Links
[digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought.
There is no need to run 1000 watts is just plain wrong. It depends upon what your're trying to do. If you're trying to make a QSO with a station half a world away under tough propogation conditions, it may indeed be necessary. 1000 watts may be the minimum power required to make the contact. PSK and other digital contacts are good for DXCC digital credit. For example, some people did indeed work one of the VU4 dxpedition stations half a world away using PSK. It did take them a lot of power. It was legit to do so. Contests are also legit. Ragchewing isn't the only activity digital modes can be used for. I agree if you're intent on only working easy paths than 20-50 watts is mostly OK. That's not what everybody wants to do. The only reg requirements are min power necessary a clean transmitted signal and no intentional interference. Also there is no relationship between transmitted power and distortion. A KW can be clean and 2 watts can be dirty. You can't tell from a waterfall that somebody is running too much power for a given path. A clean 2 watts from across the street can look pretty dirty if your RX can't handle the signal without RX overload. The expectation that one is going to sit there day in and day out with a wide RX filter and not be bothered by other stations is unrealistic. This is a shared frequency hobby. Putting the blame on the other guy and trying to reform him isn't the answer. The answer is to make YOUR station as bullet proof to intefering signals as possible. That means narrow filters will often be necessary. It means knowing how to use passband tuning, notches, AGC, RF gain control and whatever other technology you can throw at it. QRM is part of the hobby. Digital modes are not immune or exempt. Quit crying and accept reality. de K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Lew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have been running PSK for severial years, I run around 20 - 25 watts, with the ALC just starting to move My IMD report is around -32. and the fan runs very little I have tried running 50 Watts and after a few min. the fan is running at full speed and the radio is hot. CW or voice are 50% duty cycle (not always xmitting at power set point) PSK and other digital modes on the other hand always has a tone being xmitted. ie 100% duty cycle. I have talked to stations with sidebands and they were running around 100Watts had them cut the power to 20 - 30 watts, the side bands were gone, their IMD got much better and I could still copy them with no problems. I run a TS-2000 to a dipole and as a rule if I can hear them I can contact them. so much for high power with PSK or other digital modes just my 2 cents Lew N4HRA - Original Message - From: Roger J. Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 10:56 Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Here's a silly thought. 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 though, someone jumps in the middle and says that a well adjusted signal, blah blah blah, wont cause problems. Ive been told to get a receiver: get a rig: get a filter, etc. I have all three thank you - but that doesnt mean that the person transmitting such signals is not responisble to the amateur code and should not run the minimum power needed to make contacts. One can almost always tell who is exceeding necessary power, just from the view on the waterfalls. When one signal out of 20 appears 4 time brighter, and has traces above and below their main signal for half the width of the waterfall, they are exceeding power badly. Especially with PSK, many of us use broadband copy software, so we can see and copy every signal on the band at the same time. With one of those signals, I see the same station readout on a dozen or more channels of that window. Often, they just wipe out everyone else. There is never an excuse for running an unclean signal on PSK or any other mode, i.e. with sidebands, etc. In fact, this is a violation of Part 97 and analogous regulations in other countries that require a signal to conform (more or less) to the state-of-the-art as regards purity. On the other hand, it is a myth that PSK only requires 20 or 30 watts for effective communication. This is no more true of PSK than it is of the ultimate digital mode, CW. The laws of physics control all, and a signal using more power will *sometimes* get through when a signal using 20 or 30 watts will not get through. This can be the difference between a solid QSO and no QSO. There is a reason why most CW operators run 100 watts or more. Nevertheless, some ops are
[digitalradio] Re:Announcing the Digitalradio 7th Anniversary WAC Challenge/Award
Nice idea Andy, should stir things up methinks. Any room for a SWL class in the challenge ? I think I can rustle up a couple of SWLs to take part. 73 and have a great weekend. Brian ZL2001SWL EPC 002L SWARL _ Live Search delivers results the way you like it. Try live.com now! http://www.live.com
[digitalradio] Re: New revsions to K3UK's The Complete Bozo's Guide to HF JT65A
New revisions fill in some holes. Thanks. One of the revision areas states: One JT65A user remarked that the 6 minutes length of time to conclude the standard exchange was agony, he did not like the wait. Certainly, a JT65A QSO takes longer than the quick voice contacts or a RTTY DX exchange. However, a JT65A QSO is not that much longer than many other digital QSOs, except that you are not transmitting all those long winded messages about your QTH and equipment. JT65A automatically tells you where person is located via the grid square information. Andy just think of how much shorter other digital mode QSO's could be if they only transmitted only the equivalent of a JT65 exchange. Personally, I'm not really interested in their dog's DNA. For those modes there is hope of reducing the QSO time. For JT65 there isn't any hope. The agony will always be there. 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A revised version of K3UK's The Complete Bozo's Guide to HF JT65A has been released at http://www.obriensweb.com/bozoguidejt65a.htm This contains significant revision and new items. Thanks to all that contributed ideas. The knowledge base for HF application of WSJT/JT65A is getting to the point where most users now know more than me. I anticipate one more revision when I add further details about reading all the info in the main graphical display , after that the revisions will be cosmetic improvements to the HTML code and alignment of the pictures. Again, if there is anything just plain stupid or wrong, let me know. -- Andy K3UK Skype Me : callto://andyobrien73 www.obriensweb.com
[digitalradio] Re: S/N Multipsk figures -- JT65A vs Olivia and others
I'm perplexed by the edited dB figures. On JT65A HF it doesn't make any sense that the values are -5 or -6 db when the signal is strong and moving the S-meter to s5 or s6. Here we use a 300Hz filter and the audio output is adjusted to read about 0db with no signal. What I would have expected is the db value would be referenced to this receiver noise floor value. Secondly, I can hear and copy the CW ID at edited values of -20db or so. That also makes no sense. This threshold should be around -10db or so below the RX noise floor. This audible threshold is pretty much independent of whether one uses a 2.1 KHz filter or the narrower 300HZ filter. In fact, if I'm interested in hearing really weak signals, using the 2.1KHz filter allows weaker CW signals to be heard -- presumably due to less attenuation in the wider filter. This only works of course if there is no signal within the filter passband which starts AGC action. AVC use no doubt confounds things for stronger signals. However, there is no option on the IC706 to turn of AGC. Audio output is pretty much linear (as per ARRL BPL studies) below the AGC threshold. I estimate that threshould to be about S2 for the 706. So just what does the edited db value mean? It certainly does not represent how far the signal is below the RX noise floor. Since RX gain is unknown, it can't represent some absolute value of voltage. 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Lindecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello to all, Comparizon with S/N Multipsk figures. According to JT65 specifications, this mode decodes with few errors down to -23 dB, with a normalized band of 2.5 KHz. All Multipsk figures are normalized with a band of 3 KHz. -23 dB in 2.5 KHz is about -24 dB in 3 KHz band (-23.792 dB exactly). This figure of -24 dB can be compared to Olivia 250-8 which has a minimum S/N of -14 dB. So JT65 is 10 dB better or 10 times better. But of course JT65 is much slower that Olivia 250-8. The only modes which are close to JT65 are: * THROBX: Lowest S/N: -18,5 dB for the 1 baud, -17.5 dB for the 2 bauds * PSKAM10: Lowest S/N : -19.5 dB In conclusion JT65 is better (under S/N criteria) that any modes in Multipsk. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 9:25 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Path Simulator tests -- JT65A vs Olivia and others All: I used Pathsim to compare the sensitivity of JT65A vs MFSK, PSK31 and OLIVIA using AWGN to alter the SNR. I ran direct-path with no ionospheric disturbance. The chat modes decoded with error-free print down to -12 to -14db SNR. The JT65A mode decoded at -27db SNR (signal inaudible). Assuming the Pathsim white noise measurments were accurate, I think it's safte to say that JT65 is capable of decoding much weaker signals than the others. Would be interesting to see how it does with simulated ionospheric disturbances. 73 Tony - KT2Q
[digitalradio] Re: S/N Multipsk figures -- JT65A vs Olivia and others
Thank you Patrick for the explanation. No doubt the mode has solid theoretical resons for what it edits. Intercomparing various digital modes has some merit-- like for a Ph.D thesis or marketing. However as a user, the present value edited isn't a number that is too useful. It apparently tells me nothing about how far below the RX noise the signal I'm copying really is. That's unfortunate. Making contacts with large -db values seems to overstate the mode's capabilities in this regard. It's kind of like the expensive receivers which show S9 signal levels for weak stations-- making the purchaser happy he spend the extra money. Then later he finds out that the manufacturer has calibrated his S meter in 3db (or less) increments and his receiver is perhaps only marginally better. For me these 6 + minute/QSO's are agony. I'm really after some indication of what the agony is really buying in signal reception. 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Lindecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello brian, The S/N referenced to a bandwidth is used to compare modes under a noise environment criteria. A minimum S/N of 0 dB means that with an equal power (let's say 1 watt) of signal and noise (noise distributed over a 3 KHz band so with a density of 0.33 W/KHz), the signal transmitted will be decoded. In an other mode with a minimum S/N of -10 dB, you will need only 0.1 Watt of signal for 1 Watt of the same noise to decode the text transmitted, and so on. In fact, if I'm interested in hearing really weak signals, using the 2.1KHz filter allows weaker CW signals to be heard -- The ability to decode a weak (CW) signal is a psycho-acoustic problem. As far as I know, reducing the bandwidth helps down to a limit (perhaps 500 Hz?). 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Brian A To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 2:07 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: S/N Multipsk figures -- JT65A vs Olivia and others I'm perplexed by the edited dB figures. On JT65A HF it doesn't make any sense that the values are -5 or -6 db when the signal is strong and moving the S-meter to s5 or s6. Here we use a 300Hz filter and the audio output is adjusted to read about 0db with no signal. What I would have expected is the db value would be referenced to this receiver noise floor value. Secondly, I can hear and copy the CW ID at edited values of -20db or so. That also makes no sense. This threshold should be around -10db or so below the RX noise floor. This audible threshold is pretty much independent of whether one uses a 2.1 KHz filter or the narrower 300HZ filter. In fact, if I'm interested in hearing really weak signals, using the 2.1KHz filter allows weaker CW signals to be heard -- presumably due to less attenuation in the wider filter. This only works of course if there is no signal within the filter passband which starts AGC action. AVC use no doubt confounds things for stronger signals. However, there is no option on the IC706 to turn of AGC. Audio output is pretty much linear (as per ARRL BPL studies) below the AGC threshold. I estimate that threshould to be about S2 for the 706. So just what does the edited db value mean? It certainly does not represent how far the signal is below the RX noise floor. Since RX gain is unknown, it can't represent some absolute value of voltage. 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Lindecker f6cte@ wrote: Hello to all, Comparizon with S/N Multipsk figures. According to JT65 specifications, this mode decodes with few errors down to -23 dB, with a normalized band of 2.5 KHz. All Multipsk figures are normalized with a band of 3 KHz. -23 dB in 2.5 KHz is about -24 dB in 3 KHz band (-23.792 dB exactly). This figure of -24 dB can be compared to Olivia 250-8 which has a minimum S/N of -14 dB. So JT65 is 10 dB better or 10 times better. But of course JT65 is much slower that Olivia 250-8. The only modes which are close to JT65 are: * THROBX: Lowest S/N: -18,5 dB for the 1 baud, -17.5 dB for the 2 bauds * PSKAM10: Lowest S/N : -19.5 dB In conclusion JT65 is better (under S/N criteria) that any modes in Multipsk. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 9:25 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Path Simulator tests -- JT65A vs Olivia and others All: I used Pathsim to compare the sensitivity of JT65A vs MFSK, PSK31 and OLIVIA using AWGN to alter the SNR. I ran direct-path with no ionospheric disturbance. The chat modes decoded with error-free print down to -12 to -14db SNR. The JT65A mode decoded at -27db SNR (signal inaudible
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digi Keyer
On Mar 29, 2007, at 6:27 PM, Andrew O'Brien wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, w0tmm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I bought a DigiKeyer and it arrived today. I have it hooked up to my TS-2000, but there is no where to plug in the RTTY plug. The ACC2 port has a connector for it. Does anyone have any experience with the DigiKeyer and the TS-2000? I forgot about that. My FSK key on the Microham cable for the TS2000 just hangs loose. It appears to not be needed. I think I recall my brain being puzzled when it first arrived and concluding that that section of the cable was for another Kenwood, the 570. Just ingnore it. FSK RTTY and AFSK RTTY with my TS2000 and my Microkeyer works just fine, I assume the same will apply to your Digikeyer. I have no experience using it with a TS-2000, but I do own a DigiKeyer and I do use it with FSK on my FT-1000mp. Last night, I set up MMTTY and it works fine with FSK. Given a choice between AFSK and FSK, I'd definitely use FSK for RTTY whenever possible. Maybe it is less important to you. -- Brian -- http://users.wildblue.net/k7on/ Blessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: What's with Boulder?
On Mar 12, 2007, at 6:57 AM, kv9u wrote: detect. I have no idea how something like this can be sold for such a low price ($30, I think it was at Wal-Mart) and that includes an outdoor sensor for that price. Needless to say, I have a spare sensor if I only have 1 atomic/WWV clock here and I bought it a couple years ago at CVS when they opened some stores and had special coupons for any purchase. I got it for practically nothing after the coupons, $5 I am sure. It is not especially fancy, but has time/date and indoor temperature. In amateur radio, I think, the market is fairly small and sometimes prices reflect it. In retail, special promotions, loss leaders etc can provide some bargains for related items that are general consumer products. I don't think it always has to be slave labor, etc to get a good bargain from time to time. -- Brian -- http://users.wildblue.net/k7on/ Blessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light.
RE: [digitalradio] Source of Anti-Static Envelopes
On 12 Mar 2005 at 0:13, RussellHltn wrote: P.S. Has anybody come up with a clever use for all those unwanted AOL.com CDs ? One guy sold his collection going from floppy to current CD for $232. Another guy is making VFO dials for radios out of them! They look REALLY good too! I am trying to find the web link again with the pictures. It's really cool what he did. The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ a href=http://dxcluster.blogspot.com;img src=http://feeds.feedburner.com/DigitalSpotter.gif; height=67 width=200 style=border:0 alt=Digital Spotter//a Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * 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/
