Oops...the F1ULT Pascal WEB site. That's the one I meant. Yes, a pointer to some other Web site....and that IS what the web is suppose to do.
73, Walt/K5YFW -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 3:42 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes Hello Walt and Jose, Yes it would be a very good thing to compare all digital modes with their respective qualities and weakness. It would give ideas for new specifications of mode. For a much more fine description of the modes, see the F1ULT Pascal WEB site: http://f1ult.free.fr/DIGIMODES/MULTIPSK/digimodesF6CTE_en >Perhaps someone could take on capturing reports and monthly asking Patrick to >post >them on his web page(s)? Why not, but I would prefer to put a link from my WEB site to an another WEB site, because it would be preferable to do a fine HTML presentation (and I have not very much time for this...). Perhaps Pascal would be interested, as he has done yet a fine presentation.. Jose, some questions, * for Pactor, why do you need a so precise timing It seems that you need a 1/100,000 precision or better. This because the RX Pactor modem follows an exact timing from the beginning of the QSO (after a first signal synchrization). In other words, is there any possibility for the RX Pactor modem to take into account a drift (due to a not very precise PC cristal, or due to the Windows uncertainty) by simply synchronizing on the signal? * I see in the protocol that the Master automatically test the 200 bauds speed with a CS4 signal. Is it systematic and independant from the user, or is it a user request? * may you confirm that you integer the Pactor protocol in your soft? * which will be the best for a test under Windows (in a far future!), between Amtor and Pactor? * is there the same problem of very precise timing for Amtor ARQ? * how do you manage the RX/TX switch? The time to switch the TX is not equal to 0 ms and you must take the switching time into account very precisely, don't you? Does this switching time vary a lot (in "ms" scale)? TKS 73 Patrick ----- Original Message ----- From: DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 6:49 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes Doc, you said..."Not to discourage innovation but perhaps a very centralized and unbiased Web page that compares and contrasts all of the modes would assist Hams in making choices for the best of the myriad choices." I think that Patrick has a good start with his mode page. A problem I see is with us (hams) is that we don't really evaluate a mode or signal's preformace under different conditions and uses...just how "we" use it. Are we shooting ourselves in the foot here? I've been trying to get folks to look at modes for 1) intended use, 2) how error free per intended use, 3) how robuse per intended use, 4) throughput per intended use. Perhaps someone could take on capturing reports and monthly asking Patrick to post them on his web page(s)? Walt/K5YFW EXAMPLE MODE MFSK16 (click on MFSK16 goes to Patrick's mode description) Intended Use How Error Free How Hobuse Throughput Overall Rating Chat rate 1 - 10 rate 1 - 10 rate 1 - 10 rate 1 - 10 Messaging rate 1 - 10 rate 1 - 10 rate 1 - 10 rate 1 - 10 File Transfer rate 1 - 10 rate 1 - 10 rate 1 - 10 rate 1 - 10 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 12:53 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes Joel Kolstad wrote: > If Pactor, packet Amtor, etc. all died because of the need for a $300 TNC, > I think amateur radio as a hobby really is dying! $300 in today's money is > nothing compared to what many amateurs paid for their HF rigs years ago. Many digital modes have faded due to improved and more popular modes and the fragmentation of digital modes & their ops. Not to discourage innovation but perhaps a very centralized and unbiased Web page that compares and contrasts all of the modes would assist Hams in making choices for the best of the myriad choices. That would both promote innovation because developers will want to be at the top of the list and because users will flock to the best. -- Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E ... somewhere in FL URL: bibleseven (dot) com Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
