Thomas dl9sau wrote:
> Hello Anthony, thank your for your great efforts in the measurement of
> sensitivity of
> our digital modes and their strength in different environments.
My pleasure Thomas. Hope you find it useful.
> Am i right that in the "CW 20 WPM**.......................13db" line
> you have forgotten a '-' (-13dB)?
> How is it with CHIP-64? ("8db")?
Glad you caught that Thomas. They should read -13db CW and -8db for Chip64.
I may not have checked the draft before releasing it to Don so sorry about
that.
> Perhaps, also an interesting test candidate could be K1JT's new "WSPR"
> Mode
I just finished testing all WSJT modes and will release the data as soon as
possible.
> I think it could be very interesting to get a comparison with SCS's
> Pactor-I, -II and -III as well as with their "Robust-Packet" mode..
That would be interesting. It might be difficult to test systems like this
without having two modems. There's also the issue of putting the sound card
path simulator in line. Guess it could be done.
Thanks for the kind words Thomas
Best regards,
Tony - K2MO
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Osterried" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 7:07 AM
Subject: digitalradio yahoo discussions group: hf path simulations
> Hello Anthony,
>
> thank your for your great efforts in the measurement of sensitivity of
> our digital modes and their strength in differend environments, under
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/28472?l=1
>
> Am i right that in the "CW 20 WPM**.......................13db" line
> you have forgotten a '-' (-13dB)?
> How is it with CHIP-64? ("8db")?
>
> Perhaps, also an interesting test candidate coud be K1JT's new "WSPR"
> Mode.
>
> I think it could be very interesting to get a comparison with SCS's
> Pactor-I, -II and -III as well as with their "Robust-Packet" mode..
>
> 73,
> - Thomas dl9sau
