Hi, If this is such a great mode, I wonder why so many call it a "pactor pest" or a "plague".
Maybe the answer is on this website: http://www.digipan.net/ Have a nice day. 73 de LA5VNA Steinar Demetre SV1UY skrev: > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi Demetre, > > > > I was not suggesting that hams would be using $5000 modems. I won't > even > > buy the "relatively" low cost SCS modem for ~ $1000. > > > > The reason of course, is that we now have amateur sound card modes, and > > are likely to have more of them in the future, and they are for the > most > > part at no additional cost for the hardware or software, once you buy > > the computer. > > > > My point was that the military and commercial users are buying these > > insanely expensive products and they may not work all that well:( > > > > Pactor 2 and 3 are commercial modes. It requires > > hardware/firmware/software that is available only from the commercial > > manufacturer. Same with the HAL Communications products, especially > > Clover 2000, which are almost never used by radio amateurs. The earlier > > Clover II was used by some of us but fell by the wayside as it was, > > quite frankly, was not that good. Even earlier was the Clover mode > > (Clover and Clover II were both invented by Ray, W7GHM), but that was > > strictly an amateur mode requiring complicated equipment and was mostly > > a proof of concept that then was carried over to the commercial > world as > > Clover II, but on a DSP board instead of phase locking your > frequency to > > a standard time signal. > > > > The sound card modes are primarily amateur modes whether MT-63, Olivia, > > PSK variants, MFSK16, DominoEX, etc., etc., Same concept as when we had > > hardware/firmware systems that adapted X.25 and used it for amateur > > radio as AX.25. Same thing with Sitor being adapted for amateur use as > > Amtor. > > > > Now we have ALE, which was primarily used for commercial purposes > and is > > now available as a sound card mode and it is freely available and can > > work without the expensive hardware. If it only used hardware from > > commercial sources, ALE would rarely be used on amateur frequencies. > > > > If Pactor was the only new digital mode, more of us would spend the > > money for the hardware/firmware system, but because it is only one > niche > > player, we thankfully don't have to do this. I abandoned Pactor (Hal > > P-38 card) many years ago and would never move back to hardware > > solutions again for amateur use. > > > > Does Pactor 3 really work well at -18 dB? I would like to see some > tests > > that show this, but have not found much on the internet. I understand > > that some hams compared Clover products and presented the > information at > > a TAPR/ARRL DCC some time back, but I never heard any details. > > > > Are you able to TX 2400 baud data modes in Greece? If so, how about > > testing some of the sound card ALE modes and letting us know how > they work? > > > > 73, > > > > Rick, KV9U > > > > > > Hi Rick, > > Well it all depends on what is an amateur mode. Is it a mode which is > free of charge? I wish I also had a free of charge radio and computer, > but this is not possible unfortunatelly. > > Also the old modes such as CLOVER, GTOR etc, are not used anymore > because they were not performing at all under noisy conditions (kept > on loosing the link) and radio amateurs stopped using them. > > PACTOR 3 really flies in good conditions (5200 b/s) and performs > poorly down to -18dB (theoretically) but it holds the link. As far as > I know there is no other mode today that does that on HF, not even the > military modes that use the $5000 modems. > > I personally use PACTOR 3 quite a lot and nearly everyday when I am > away from home, especially in some remote island (we have 3000 of them > in Greece and you are welcome to come for a holiday) in our long summers. > > As for the soundcard modes, I also enjoy using them but really they > are very slow and they are OK for rag chewing not for file transfer, > e-mail, etc. I have yet to see a decent mode that performs half as > good as PACTOR 3 for file transfer on HF. They do not even have ARQ, > except PSKMAIL but then again PSKMAIL uses PSK125 with a speed of > 100bps or even less. This is very slow compared to 5200 bps that > PACTOR 3 can do and that can keep the link, by sacrificing performance > and slowing down considerably even down to -18dB. But at least it can > do it and it can keep the filetransfer where no other mode can. > > Personally although I am very interested in Digital QSOs on HF it is > was never my primary interest. That is why I have chosen PACTOR many > years ago for my digital HF filetransfers, e-mail, etc. If I were > interested in QSOs only I probably wouldn't have bought PACTOR 3 > because the soundcard digital modes are all you need. > > I have tested RFSM2400 quite a few times and found that unless I could > hear very well the signal of my corresponded I could not decode > anything, and then it was very touchy to any noise on HF. Since HF are > very noisy I got sick of it and abandoned it. I have heard that the > military modes that some have implemented to work with soundcards > perform in the same way more or less because all the above need a good > signal to work. > > Now if I have to buy a 1 KW linear amplifier, a 3 element Yagi, a > tower and an expensive rotator in order to make the soundcard modes > work, thanks very much. I might save $1000 from the SCS modem but I > would have to pay at least $5000 for a decent linear and a > Yagi/tower/rotator combo. > > This makes the PACTOR 3 modem really cheap because I can work PACTOR 3 > and send/receive e-mail or make a filetransfer on HF with my FT-817 > and a piece of wire tossed at a nearby tree or to a fishing pole if > there are no trees around, and use a dead cheap secondhand laptop. > > If this is not cheap for a decent HF Digital ARQ mode then I do not > know what it is. > > Nevertheless I would happily get rid of my PACTOR 3 controllers if I > saw something that can do half as good as PACTOR 3 and it can perform > well with a low power portable radio, and of course if it manages to > transfer intact files on HF, not half intact as pure FEC systems can. > > 73 de Demetre SV1UY > >
