It may be that Dave et. al. decide not to incorporate an automatic mode
recognition feature, and so an external program may be the only route, but
I'd hope not since I think automatic mode recognition inside fldigi would
be great.

However, I'd like to suggest separating the incremental development of
such a feature from its eventual implementation.  Personally I think it's
more easily developed and prototyped externally because of the ease of
writing the test programs and algorithms in scripting languages such as
Perl or Python.

Leigh/WA5ZNU

> Sounds like an excellent candidate for a separate program.
>
> This might be somewhat involved from what I am hearing and if the approach
> would turn out to be like
> ALE , if not a separate program then perhaps a separate fork.
>
> I haven't experienced the difficulty in identifying signals especially
> since
> the samples of the different modes
> supported in Fldigi were posted some time ago.  That was very nice indeed.
> We use it in our training very heavily along with
> the throughput charts to help folks understand why one might choose a
> particular mode over another.
>
> Just my thoughts.  It is an intriguing idea though.
>
> 73's
>
> Mike
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:23 PM, [email protected] <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for the answer.
>>
>> Maybe we could have this kind of architecture:
>>
>> * A scanning module which handles the logic of working on a range
>> frequency, with given steps depending on the frequency. Tempo for each
>> frequency, loop or stop after one scan, etc... ( xml-rpc
>> main.set_frequency
>> ). It might run as well on a list of predefined frequencies (ALE).
>>
>> * A list of 'reasonable'  modes to try, based on the frequency and user
>> choices. Based on usual rules and frequency usage.
>>
>> * A module which 'decides' to 'try' a frequency because there is a
>> signal.
>> It uses the signal/noise ratio, and can be customized given the mode,
>> but by
>> default just uses the power. Maybe uses xml-rpc modem.get_quality
>> function ?
>> Or modem.search_up and modem.search_down, but at the moment the virtual
>> function modem::searchUp is implemented only for psk and rtty, and we
>> would
>> also have to extend the maximum frequency where this function can go,
>> because it is limited at the moment to IMAGE_WIDTH-bandwidth.
>>
>> * A module which 'tries' to decode ( text.get_rx / main.rx ) with the
>> current mode and, given the result, decide whether it is positive or
>> not.
>> Depending on the modem, it can be the entropy, or a reasonable number of
>> English words, etc... abstracted in a boolean value. Uses
>> modem.set_by_id
>>
>> * An optional module sending a specific message when something is
>> detected
>> on a frequency ( main.run_macro or main.tx ). It would wait until the
>> current emission is finished.
>>
>> * A function which saves the frequency map + time + detected sample, in
>> a
>> browsable format (DBLog database or ADIF for example)
>>
>> Would we create a new program or adds this to an existing prog ? Or
>> create
>> a super-macro ?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Remi
>>
>>
>> Leigh L. Klotz, Jr WA5ZNU wrote:
>>
>>> I wanted to do this a few years ago; one idea I had then was letting
>>> the
>>> user pick the bandwidth of the signal, and then decoding and measuring
>>> the
>>> entropy of the received text.  It might be good to use the network
>>> interface
>>> to do this, because you then have the freedom to prototype in any
>>> language.
>>>
>>> I've done some tests and just calculating entropy or Phi value
>>> (approximation of English letter frequency) isn't good enough yet.
>>> I did this by analyzing fldigi log files, not by comparing decoding
>>> output
>>> of different modems, so maybe entropy would be good enough.
>>> Phi is not useful, though, because of the high frequency of acronyms,
>>> Q-signals, and numeric reports in short samples of QSOs.
>>>
>>> Leigh/WA5ZNU
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05/31/2010 02:00 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for the answer. This is something like that I have in mind: A
>>>> kind
>>>> of software-based scanner looping on every frequency of a given
>>>> frequency
>>>> range, with a given step.
>>>> At each step, it measures the signal/noise ratio. If it is powerful
>>>> enough, it tries a subset of modem types (Subset based on the
>>>> frequency for
>>>> example). For each of them, it waits a couple of seconds, and tries to
>>>> decode something meaningful. Instead of looping on a frequency rqnge,
>>>> it
>>>> might as well try a list of given frequencies.
>>>>
>>>> If it can find something 'interesting' (Occurence of given strings
>>>> such
>>>> as 'CQ', callsigns, english words etc...) , it writes the data and the
>>>> frequency in a logbook (Or database like DBlog's one).
>>>>
>>>> I wondered whether <SRCHUP> and <SRCHDN> may help, but I could not
>>>> really
>>>> understand them nor make them work.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> R
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andy obrien wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have a problem guessing which are the transmit modes of some
>>>>> signals
>>>>>>>> we receive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, do you please think it would be possible to have an automatic
>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>> for guessing the mode of a signal ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Something which would try all fldigi modes, wait a couple of
>>>>>>>> seconds
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> decode something,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> You may be able to do thisalready via the macros.  To save sometime,
>>>>> break it down in to a couple of macros differentiated by distinct
>>>>> classes of signals, leave out the ones you are already knowledgeable
>>>>> about (e.g. RTTY is so distinct you probably do not need that in a
>>>>> macro, same for PSK31.  )  example
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <MODEM:CTSTIA:250:8>
>>>>> <MODEM:CTSTIA:500:16>
>>>>> <MODEM:CTSTIA:1000:8>
>>>>> <MODEM:CTSTIA:1000:16>
>>>>> <MODEM:CTSTIA:500:8>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> and play around with the <TIMER:NN>  commands in between each mode
>>>>> command.
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy K3UK
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> fldigi-alpha mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/fldigi-alpha
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> fldigi-alpha mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/fldigi-alpha
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> fldigi-alpha mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/fldigi-alpha
>>
>


_______________________________________________
fldigi-alpha mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/fldigi-alpha

Reply via email to