Phil, 

> What about PSKFEC31 under the same test scenarios?  

Have a look: 

Path Simulation: High Latitude (Moderate) 
Path Delay: 3ms, Doppler spread 10Hz
Pangram Text: Quick Brown Fox


PSK31FEC

 t e tio E ttaeH loo etee- e e e ˆyaooe n o
 ao t aeepvede n neete ueeeu�.tna0 o een
it=pctidr a ieae t e tio E ttaeH loo etee- e e 
 etˆyaooe on oe ne 6etnuEenoel o·b geogtee 


PSK63F

the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog
the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog
the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog

Tony -K2MO




----- Original Message ----- 
From: Phil Williams 
To: [email protected] 
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 5:16 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 <[email protected]> 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




Reply via email to