Patrick, Thank you for the information. If throughput is one the metrics for this comparision then I clearly see your point.
The argument of reduced character set in PSKFEC31 is a little difficult as it looked like Tony was not considering that particular metric as his comparsion include RTTY ;-). 73 es hny philw de ka1gmn On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Patrick Lindecker <f6...@free.fr> wrote: > > > Hello Phil, > > According to my measures (under gaussian noise), PSKFEC31 has a minimum S/N > of -14.5 dB (2.5 dB better than PSK63F) but the speed is twice weaker (28 > wpm). It includes a FEC system (bit based) which permits to have a more > robust mode than PSK31 (about 5 times less errors than PSK31), in good > conditions. However, I think PSK63F is more robust than PSKFEC31 in bad > conditions. > Moreover, PSKFEC31 has a reduced set of characters. PSKFEC31 can be > received in a panoramic way (multi reception). > > So to abstract, it is more sensitive and more robust than PSK31, more > sensitive than PSK63F but less robust than this one. > > PSK63F is in all cases better than PSK31. The only advantage of PSK31 is > its smaller bandwidth. > > 73 > Patrick > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Phil Williams <ka1...@gmail.com> > *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > *Sent:* Monday, January 04, 2010 11:16 AM > *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] IZ8BLY's PSK63F > > Very interesting. What about PSKFEC31 under the same test scenarios? > Certainly, there would be more a in throughput, but that is a matter of > some liberal use of CW shorthand. > > philw de ka1gmn > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Tony <d...@optonline.net> wrote: > >> >> >> All, >> >> Recent path simulation tests indicate that Nino Porcino's PSK63F offers >> better performance over PSK31 and PSK63 in a couple of areas. The most >> significant improvement is it's ability to endure Doppler spread found on >> paths that cross the polar ionosphere. Both PSK31 and PSK63 fail miserably >> >> in this area; see high-lat test samples below. >> >> Path Simulation: High Latitude (Moderate) Path Delay: 3ms, Doppler spread >> 10Hz >> Pangram Text: Quick Brown Fox >> >> PSK63F -- the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog >> PSK63 -- mev roe tt#dtorl|f- bn ô mp e o ihe Fzy dg >> PSK31 -- nls oSer Òe naAeta qlipM h nV o T rn agâ o >> RTTY -- TH QACKH492, FOJUMP OR THTLAZY G >> >> Sensitivity-wise, it's quite a bit more sensitivity than PSK63, but only >> marginally better than PSK31. Although it's speed is about 25% faster than >> >> PSK31, it's about 40% slower than PSK63. Average wmp rate seems to be 63 >> wpm >> for PSK63F. >> >> Lowest S/N (sensitivity) >> >> PSK63F -12db >> PSK63 -7db >> PSK31 -11db >> RTTY -5db >> >> Additional path tests indicate that PSK31 and PSK63F perform about the >> same >> under moderate mid-latitude conditions (CCIR fading channel). Tests show >> that PSK31 and PSK63F will outperform PSK63 when signals are weak under >> quiet conditions since they both have greater sensitivity. >> >> It would be interesting to hear from our HF digital friends up north who >> experience the distorting effects of the polar ionosphere on a regular >> basis; this is where the PSK63F mode can be put to the test. >> >> Available software: >> >> Nino Porcino's Stream -- http://xoomer.virgilio.it/aporcino/ >> Patrick Lindeckers Multipsk -- http://f6cte.free.fr/index_anglais.htm >> (thanks for including PSK63F Patrick) >> >> Tony, K2MO >> >> > >
