[digitalradio] Re: Understanding soundcard basics ?
Hi Andy. I would say the sound card qualities are very similar to receiver. Noise floor Linearity Birdies and other noise I exclude timing issues, because they could most often be corrected for with software. Also I exclude stuff like bad drivers, that would cause dropouts. Now if you use narrow band receiver, you will be fine even with poor sound card, because noise floor will not be an issue. You will suffer sound card nonlinearity, if you try to receive panoramatic PSK31 with poor sound card. Noise floor may be an issue. High sound card noise floor will make SDR like SoftRock unusable, the receiver will be deaf, I have my personal experience. SDR puts biggest strain on your sound card. It sounds perverse to play with $15 SoftRock connected to $100 sound card and this is the reason why my SoftRock is stored in the basement as I did not have $100 to spare for the toy. Vojtech --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "obrienaj" wrote: > > From what I have read in the past, there is a difference between inexpensive > sound cards and the high quality ones. I recall past articles that suggest > the high quality ones can result in some very weak signals being detectable > in a waterfall, whereas cheap cards may not reproduce the signal. However, > as most of us know, even the cheap sound cards effectively render the average > ham signals, even quite weak ones. > > So, aside from the higher end ones rendering weak signals on a waterfall > better, what are measurable difference between a poor cheap one and a really > good top-of-the-line one ? Can someone explain this is plain English? > > I am aware of the "calibration/timing" issue. Although that too does not > seem to make a huge difference with many digital modes. Of the numerous > digital modes I have tried over the years, PC-ALE and JT65A in WSJT have been > the most impacted by calibration issues. I have seen WSJT not decode at all > when timing of the soundcard is not correct. Do higher end sound card have > less problems with timing/calibration than cheap ones? > > Is calibration really an issue of concern IF an application can enable a > re-calibration process ? If an application enables re-calibration, does that > only "hold" for that application or can it correct the soundcard for other > applications. > > I raise these questions out of general interest, but also because of recent > WINMOR test where the poor performance has been blamed , in part, on cheap > sound cards or sound cards not dedicated to the application. I don't know > enough to argue the point, but my suspicion is that it is really not that > sound card related. > > Andy K3UK >
Re: [digitalradio] Understanding soundcard basics ?
This is a topic I am also interested in. I have a box full of sound cards (and several systems with internal sound), and I have tested several of them using the 'Sound Card Sample Rate Checker' that is included with MixW (aka CheckSR.exe). This program checks the sound card against the computer clock, which its self is only accurate to about 100 PPM from what I have read - so this is a somewhat crude method. Anyway, it does give you a ballpark figure. For example, an old SoundBlaster Live card had an error of input: 204ppm, output: 189ppm. My best card is a Soundblaster X-fi with input: -8ppm, output: -9ppm. The internal sound on my Dell Optiplex GX280 was -33ppm and -79ppm. Here is a message I found in a MixW forum, that gives a better method of finding out how much error your card has: http://forums.qrz.com/archive/index.php/t-126869.html Stability of your radio can also be an issue, so the method they describe (using WWV and a freq counter) will let you know if that is a problem. I really don't know how much this error will affect WINMOR's ability to do its thing... I have passed messages with a friend using the worst of my cards (internal audio on a Dell laptop), and then been unable to decode connect requests from another friend nearby who is using a SignaLink USB (with the Jumper set, and all levels appear good). His signals sound perfect to me, and vice versa... but still I can't decode his connect requests, and he can't decode mine. Running CheckSR.exe might not be a bad idea, just to get some idea of how much error you are dealing with. Another issue is noise floor / spurs. My internal cards tend to have some pretty nasty spurs. My X-Fi is much better in this area. I'm sure there are many other factors besides these to consider. -Josh KD7PAJ > From what I have read in the past, there is a difference between inexpensive > sound cards and the high quality ones. I recall past articles that suggest > the high quality ones can result in some very weak signals being detectable > in a waterfall, whereas cheap cards may not reproduce the signal. However, as > most of us know, even the cheap sound cards effectively render the average > ham signals, even quite weak ones.
Re: [digitalradio] New Signalink to Use on Data Modes.
HI Guys, Sorry for the request for help again. I am confused with my new SL-USB. I have followed the instructions to the "T", and supposably done all the correct things. In one statement it says that if the sample rate is 11??? I should change this to 12000, but if the software is at 8000 then leave it alone. Opening HRD DM-780 I find the sample rate at 8000, so I left it alone. I then went into the calibrate mode of DM-780 and it started at about 7990 and got up to 7998.5. I ran it for about 30mins, but how long should I run the calibration? And is there a problem with it being 1.5 off? This was on RX, didn't get around to TX yet. So what happens now if I switch to another program like MMSSTV or WINMOR and I am able to change the sample rate to 12000, will this upset the settings I have in DM-780? While on it I have installed WINMOR, I intend trying it out hopefully later today (bands pretty dead here) and see what it does. BTW I am running Win7 RTC and love it. Any advanced help would be grateful Regards Kevin, ZL1KFM. PS, BTW Peter I have had a look at the information you sent, I am going through it and see what I can do to improve it, but I will wait before doing that. - Original Message - From: Peter Frenning [OZ1PIF] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 6:18 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New Signalink to Use on Data Modes. Gmail - Kevin, Natalia, Stacey & Rochelle skrev: Hi All, I am about to try out my new purchase a "SignaLinkUSB" interface with my TS-480S/AT. I don't know if I will be on by the weekend as I have a number of other jobs to do to get back on the air. But once going I would be interested in how well the little unit works. Regards Kevin, ZL1KFM. Hi Kevin, Lots of info and tips on the SLUSB here: SignaLinkUSB Mods ( http://www.frenning.dk/OZ1PIF_HOMEPAGE/SignaLinkUSB-mods.html ) -- Vy 73 de OZ1PIF/5Q2M, Peter ** CW: Who? Me? You must be joking!! ** email: peter(no-spam-filler)@frenning.dk http://www.frenning.dk/oz1pif.htm Ph. +45 4619 3239 Snailmail: Peter Frenning Ternevej 23 DK-4130 Viby Sj. Denmark ***
RE: [digitalradio] Understanding soundcard basics ?
Hello Andy, There was a very good article in QST a few years ago about sound cards. They ran five different cards through quite a battery of tests in the ARRL Lab and yes indeed, you really do get better performance out of some cards. But dollar for dollar, the performance was not linear. As you know, you can do quite well on a cheap card but do marginally better on a 60 dollar card and the lab reports showed as much. I am sure that most of the cards they reviewed are no longer being manufactured or have changed at least a little so it is difficult (like anything else electronic these days) to keep up with what is good. I am sure that QST article is available in the back issues if somebody wanted to dig for it but I learned a lot. I have no trouble with my card but I am not fighting the WINMOR Battle with it yet. Contentment and enlightenment await those who are not early adopters of technology . . . I have not yet reached the 24th stage of WINMOR awareness. :-) And I am prepared to wait on a few more beta releases - Yes I am a member of the WINMOR Yahoo group. I suspect that any calibration done in one application is only good for the use of that card in that application and nowhere else in that computer. But hey, I could be wrong on this. Rick - KH2DF _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of obrienaj Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 6:01 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Understanding soundcard basics ? >From what I have read in the past, there is a difference between inexpensive sound cards and the high quality ones. I recall past articles that suggest the high quality ones can result in some very weak signals being detectable in a waterfall, whereas cheap cards may not reproduce the signal. However, as most of us know, even the cheap sound cards effectively render the average ham signals, even quite weak ones. So, aside from the higher end ones rendering weak signals on a waterfall better, what are measurable difference between a poor cheap one and a really good top-of-the-line one ? Can someone explain this is plain English? I am aware of the "calibration/timing" issue. Although that too does not seem to make a huge difference with many digital modes. Of the numerous digital modes I have tried over the years, PC-ALE and JT65A in WSJT have been the most impacted by calibration issues. I have seen WSJT not decode at all when timing of the soundcard is not correct. Do higher end sound card have less problems with timing/calibration than cheap ones? Is calibration really an issue of concern IF an application can enable a re-calibration process ? If an application enables re-calibration, does that only "hold" for that application or can it correct the soundcard for other applications. I raise these questions out of general interest, but also because of recent WINMOR test where the poor performance has been blamed , in part, on cheap sound cards or sound cards not dedicated to the application. I don't know enough to argue the point, but my suspicion is that it is really not that sound card related. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] An open letter: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference(A dissent)
Hi, Rik. Then use a 250 or 500 Hz BW pass band filter. Engage the notch filter. Get an MFJ 1026 and null him out. Use a separately rotatable loop antenna for receive. There are a number of things which will work, either by themselves, or together. We have or can get filters and other tools. That is a good thing, since no law of physics confers immunity from strong stations a KHz away, either down the block or across the ocean. Imagine, if you will, someone trying to work 3 KHz wide narrow-band FM at 3975 KHz; the SSB signals would render his receiver useless. That's our situation, unless we improve our receivers and do what it takes to live in a crowded band where different modes must coexist with each other. Cortland KA5S > [Original Message] > From: Rik van Riel > > Cortland Richmond wrote: > > Sound card users' preference for bandwidth wide enough to receive fifty or > > more signals is what makes us vulnerable. W1AW does NOT wipe out the "80m > > psk31 sub-band;" its CW signal occupies perhaps 50-100 Hz. Use a narrow > > filter, and a front-end able to handle nearby strong signals, and the > > problem goes away. Use PBT,even and put W1AW off the filter skirts. > > Here in southern New Hampshire, W1AW is S9+40. > > Typical psk31 signals are anywhere between S2 and S8 here. > > To get W1AW suppressed by >50dB means moving the filter far > enough away that only a small part of the psk sub band > remains.
[digitalradio] Understanding soundcard basics ?
>From what I have read in the past, there is a difference between inexpensive >sound cards and the high quality ones. I recall past articles that suggest >the high quality ones can result in some very weak signals being detectable in >a waterfall, whereas cheap cards may not reproduce the signal. However, as >most of us know, even the cheap sound cards effectively render the average ham >signals, even quite weak ones. So, aside from the higher end ones rendering weak signals on a waterfall better, what are measurable difference between a poor cheap one and a really good top-of-the-line one ? Can someone explain this is plain English? I am aware of the "calibration/timing" issue. Although that too does not seem to make a huge difference with many digital modes. Of the numerous digital modes I have tried over the years, PC-ALE and JT65A in WSJT have been the most impacted by calibration issues. I have seen WSJT not decode at all when timing of the soundcard is not correct. Do higher end sound card have less problems with timing/calibration than cheap ones? Is calibration really an issue of concern IF an application can enable a re-calibration process ? If an application enables re-calibration, does that only "hold" for that application or can it correct the soundcard for other applications. I raise these questions out of general interest, but also because of recent WINMOR test where the poor performance has been blamed , in part, on cheap sound cards or sound cards not dedicated to the application. I don't know enough to argue the point, but my suspicion is that it is really not that sound card related. Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] Re: An open letter: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference
Assuming that more than just one or two hams will try to use PSK 31 on 80 m, getting out extensive comments (publishing all the facts in dozens of places to reach a maximum number of hams) on filter settings to all concerned would be a much more difficult and involved process then getting W1AW to move their frequency a bit. Purchasing all those filters and installing them adds to the complications that could drive hams completely away from PSK 31 on 80 m. This approach seems completely impractical. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "doug_helbling" wrote: > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "frankk2ncc" wrote: > > > > That sounds like a very reasonable request. Well written and good job! > > > > f, k2ncc > > > > I agree with Frank that this was a reasonable and civilized response. I have > since read W1AW's reply as well, and it, too, seems reasonable. Here is a > response from this cross-posted message on the linuxham forums that is > perhaps a more practical way for individuals to respond to this situation and > other similar ones ... > > - Doug/KE7SEI > > - from Brian, WB6RQN/J79BPL --- > > Re: An open letter: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference > Posted by: "Brian Lloyd" brian-wb6...@... briancj6a > Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:35 pm (PDT) > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > > > > Due to an unfortunate coincidence, W1AW's CW broadcasts pretty > > much wipe out the 80m psk31 sub-band for a significant fraction > > of the time. To try and address this, I have sent the following > > open letter to W1AW at the ARRL, and also published it on my web > > site: http://surriel. com/radio/ w1aw-psk- interference > > Perhaps there is something wrong with me but I don't understand why > this might be a problem. If W1AW is transmitting, just set your > filters to eliminate W1AW and continue operating. If their signal is > clean, and I bet it is, it is no more than 100-150 Hz wide, no threat > to signals beyond that. > > Oh, I bet I know what you are complaining about. You are probably > trying to receive the entire PSK subband with a 3kHz-wide filter and > W1AW is capturing your AGC, reducing the gain for all the other > signals. That strikes me as a problem with your receiving setup, not > with W1AW's transmitter. > > Here are a couple of suggestions for how you could deal with this: > > 1. Turn off your AGC and go with manual RF gain control. Most rigs > have enough dynamic range to be able to deal with W1AW's signal at > full gain without AGC so it would just be a really strong signal in > the passband. With AGC off W1AW would not reduce the gain for the > other stations you are trying to receive. > > 2. Switch to a narrower filter. A 500Hz CW filter would allow you to > narrow your receiver bandwidth to reject W1AW and still use AGC for > the signals in the passband. > > 3. If you don't have a narrower filter, offset tune the radio so that > W1AW is off the edge of the filter. Fldigi provides rig control so if > you have set that up, you can offset tune the rig but fldigi will > still properly display the frequency in the waterfall and it will > properly log the center frequency for your PSK31 QSO. > > I have three different rigs I use for PSK (and other digital modes) > and every one of them lets me work PSK in the presence of a strong > signal. One of the rigs I run is a Small Wonder Labs PSK-20 QRP PSK > transceiver. It has no AGC at all. It is a joy to use on PSK because > strong signals don't block weaker signals. When I am using my K2, I > just narrow the filter and offset tune so that the undesired signal is > outside the passband and the desired signal is inside. No problem. I > also have a Flex 5000. On it I just drag my filter skirts to pass only > the signal I am copying. I then depend on the Flex 5000's > panadaptor/waterfal l display to locate other signals to copy. Yet > again, no problem. > > So I hope this helps. One of these techniques should work with your > rig and eliminate the problem. Good luck and good DX. > > -- > 73 de Brian, WB6RQN/J79BPL >
[digitalradio] Re: [linuxham] An open letter: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference
Brian Lloyd wrote: > 1. Turn off your AGC and go with manual RF gain control. Most rigs > have enough dynamic range to be able to deal with W1AW's signal at > full gain without AGC so it would just be a really strong signal in > the passband. With AGC off W1AW would not reduce the gain for the > other stations you are trying to receive. This is good advice in general, however W1AW is about S9+40 here, which makes it 50-60dB stronger than the psk31 signals surrounding it. Sound card dynamic range is a theoretical 96dB, but much less in practice. Probably closer to 70dB (optimistic). To properly decode psk31 you want a S/N ratio of over 10dB, so even switching off the AGC may not be enough due to sound card limitations. > 3. If you don't have a narrower filter, offset tune the radio so that > W1AW is off the edge of the filter. Fldigi provides rig control so if > you have set that up, you can offset tune the rig but fldigi will > still properly display the frequency in the waterfall and it will > properly log the center frequency for your PSK31 QSO. This is certainly doable, but due to the slope of the filters in most radios, you will end up cutting off most psk signals above 3581 kHz (or below 3582), so you can inspect slices of 1/3 of the psk subband. > I have three different rigs I use for PSK (and other digital modes) > and every one of them lets me work PSK in the presence of a strong > signal. It all depends on how strong :) 30-40dB difference is usually surmountable. 50-60dB gets a lot harder due to sound card limitations. -- All rights reversed.
[digitalradio] Re: An open letter: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "frankk2ncc" wrote: > > That sounds like a very reasonable request. Well written and good job! > > f, k2ncc > I agree with Frank that this was a reasonable and civilized response. I have since read W1AW's reply as well, and it, too, seems reasonable. Here is a response from this cross-posted message on the linuxham forums that is perhaps a more practical way for individuals to respond to this situation and other similar ones ... - Doug/KE7SEI - from Brian, WB6RQN/J79BPL --- Re: An open letter: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference Posted by: "Brian Lloyd" brian-wb6...@lloyd.com briancj6a Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:35 pm (PDT) On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > Due to an unfortunate coincidence, W1AW's CW broadcasts pretty > much wipe out the 80m psk31 sub-band for a significant fraction > of the time. To try and address this, I have sent the following > open letter to W1AW at the ARRL, and also published it on my web > site: http://surriel. com/radio/ w1aw-psk- interference Perhaps there is something wrong with me but I don't understand why this might be a problem. If W1AW is transmitting, just set your filters to eliminate W1AW and continue operating. If their signal is clean, and I bet it is, it is no more than 100-150 Hz wide, no threat to signals beyond that. Oh, I bet I know what you are complaining about. You are probably trying to receive the entire PSK subband with a 3kHz-wide filter and W1AW is capturing your AGC, reducing the gain for all the other signals. That strikes me as a problem with your receiving setup, not with W1AW's transmitter. Here are a couple of suggestions for how you could deal with this: 1. Turn off your AGC and go with manual RF gain control. Most rigs have enough dynamic range to be able to deal with W1AW's signal at full gain without AGC so it would just be a really strong signal in the passband. With AGC off W1AW would not reduce the gain for the other stations you are trying to receive. 2. Switch to a narrower filter. A 500Hz CW filter would allow you to narrow your receiver bandwidth to reject W1AW and still use AGC for the signals in the passband. 3. If you don't have a narrower filter, offset tune the radio so that W1AW is off the edge of the filter. Fldigi provides rig control so if you have set that up, you can offset tune the rig but fldigi will still properly display the frequency in the waterfall and it will properly log the center frequency for your PSK31 QSO. I have three different rigs I use for PSK (and other digital modes) and every one of them lets me work PSK in the presence of a strong signal. One of the rigs I run is a Small Wonder Labs PSK-20 QRP PSK transceiver. It has no AGC at all. It is a joy to use on PSK because strong signals don't block weaker signals. When I am using my K2, I just narrow the filter and offset tune so that the undesired signal is outside the passband and the desired signal is inside. No problem. I also have a Flex 5000. On it I just drag my filter skirts to pass only the signal I am copying. I then depend on the Flex 5000's panadaptor/waterfal l display to locate other signals to copy. Yet again, no problem. So I hope this helps. One of these techniques should work with your rig and eliminate the problem. Good luck and good DX. -- 73 de Brian, WB6RQN/J79BPL
Re: [digitalradio] An open letter: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference
Rik van Riel wrote: > Due to an unfortunate coincidence, W1AW's CW broadcasts pretty > much wipe out the 80m psk31 sub-band for a significant fraction > of the time. I have received a reply from W1AW, which I have posted on my web page: http://surriel.com/radio/w1aw-psk-interference#comment-240 It appears that some of the hostility against the ARRL may be misplaced... -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: An open letter: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference
Like almost all large organizations with professional management, the ARRL has become devoted entirely to the perpetuation of itself. Paid public relations people write glowing statements expounding the dedication of the group to egalitarian principals, but to properly evaluate their motives you have to look at their actions, not their words. The ARRL is not dedicated to the benefit of Ham Radio, it is dedicated to the benefit of the ARRL. Scott Hill/K6IX W4AGA wrote: > Setting aside the misplaced sense of entitlement in that letter, > there's this from http://www.arrl.org/news/features/2001/08/07/1/ >
[digitalradio] Re: Anyone for WINMOR/FLARQ/ALE tests this weekend ?
I'll play. I am trying to learn all I can about using digital modes for emergency communications. Let's use http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/ to coordinate contacts. 73 de W4AGA --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "obrienaj" wrote: > > I think it would be fun to try a test of simple message exchanges on 40,30, > 20 meters this weekend to compare WINMOR, FLARQ and ALE (standard and 400) . > > It be be useful to have a group of us that can connect and try a message in > all four formats . > > I would propose the message simply be > > Mr. Watson--come here--I want to see you. > Callsign > band > grid locator. > > Anyone willing to try ? > > Software needed: RMS EXPRESS, FLDIGI, Multipsk (or PC-ALE for standard ALE). > > Recommend no more than 100 watts . > > Andy K3UK >
[digitalradio] QRV on 14.112
Hi all, I am QRV on 14.112 in winmor 0.2.0.2. Try to connect. 73 de LA5VNA Steinar
Re: [digitalradio] An open letter: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference
Charles Brabham wrote: > There are no "Considerate Operators" associated with the ARRL, at least > not at ARRL HQ. - They apparently do not read and understand their own > publications. W1AW has QSY'd before. For example, their 160m frequency was changed from 1817.5 to 1802.5 kHz earlier this year. http://www.arrl.org/w1aw/2009-arlb012.html That suggests the W1AW operators are a lot more considerate than many people seem to assume. -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] An open letter: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference (A dissent)
Cortland Richmond wrote: > Sound card users' preference for bandwidth wide enough to receive fifty or > more signals is what makes us vulnerable. W1AW does NOT wipe out the "80m > psk31 sub-band;" its CW signal occupies perhaps 50-100 Hz. Use a narrow > filter, and a front-end able to handle nearby strong signals, and the > problem goes away. Use PBT,even and put W1AW off the filter skirts. Here in southern New Hampshire, W1AW is S9+40. Typical psk31 signals are anywhere between S2 and S8 here. To get W1AW suppressed by >50dB means moving the filter far enough away that only a small part of the psk sub band remains. -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] An open letter: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference
Considering the fact that the ARRL has shamelessly promoted WinLink for years, despite the well-known fact that the WinLink HF stations regularly transmit ultra-wide digital hash without listening first, thus crashing legitimate ham's QSOs by the dozens every day, there's literally no point in mentioning the ARRL's "Considerate Operators Frequency Guide" to those individuals. There are no "Considerate Operators" associated with the ARRL, at least not at ARRL HQ. - They apparently do not read and understand their own publications. Your best bet for getting the ARRL to stop QRMming 80m is to join the other 80% of US hams who have stopped giving any money or support to Newington. They sure don't give a hoot about you... In this kind if situation, the only rational response is to reciprocate. 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet.Org ! http://www.hamradionet.org - Original Message - From: Rik van Riel To: linux...@yahoogroups.com ; digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 11:07 PM Subject: [digitalradio] An open letter: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference Due to an unfortunate coincidence, W1AW's CW broadcasts pretty much wipe out the 80m psk31 sub-band for a significant fraction of the time. To try and address this, I have sent the following open letter to W1AW at the ARRL, and also published it on my web site: http://surriel.com/radio/w1aw-psk-interference Original Message Subject: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:04:58 -0400 From: Rik van Riel To: w1aw To whom it may concern, The W1AW broadcasts are a great tradition and a help to some amateur radio operators, and do not seem to be in the way on most of the amateur radio bands. However, the W1AW CW broadcast on the 80 meter band, on 3581.5 kHz, is right in the middle of the psk31 sub band. Needless to say, a high power CW station pretty much wipes out the nearby psk31 signals, which are typically transmitted at low power. While strictly speaking it is legal to transmit CW anywhere on the band (I will not go into the legality of broadcasting on the ham bands), I believe we can agree that putting a strong signal right in the middle of a band segment dedicated to lower power operation is not what the ARRL's "Considerate Operator's Frequency Guide"[1] would call considerate. Because putting a high power CW broadcast in the middle of the psk31 sub band (which sees activity whenever there is propagation) is guaranteed to cause interference to active operators, I hope you would consider moving the W1AW CW broadcast to a frequency where interference is merely a possibility and not a guaranteed issue. The interference issue is especially severe due to the fact that the W1AW transmissions are scheduled on an almost daily basis, several times a day[2], wiping out the 80m psk31 subband for a significant fraction of the time. Since the W1AW CW broadcast is an automatically controlled transmission, maybe it would be better in the band segment assigned to automatically controlled data stations (3585-3590). Another good choice could be 3579.5 kHz, which would put the W1AW broadcast 500 Hz below the psk31 segment, just like it is on the 17 and 15 meter bands. kind regards, Rik van Riel, AB1KW [1] http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/conop.html [2] http://www.arrl.org/w1aw.html#w1awsked
[digitalradio] Anyone for WINMOR/FLARQ/ALE tests this weekend ?
I think it would be fun to try a test of simple message exchanges on 40,30, 20 meters this weekend to compare WINMOR, FLARQ and ALE (standard and 400) . It be be useful to have a group of us that can connect and try a message in all four formats . I would propose the message simply be Mr. Watson--come here--I want to see you. Callsign band grid locator. Anyone willing to try ? Software needed: RMS EXPRESS, FLDIGI, Multipsk (or PC-ALE for standard ALE). Recommend no more than 100 watts . Andy K3UK
RE: [digitalradio] An open letter: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference (A dissent)
Sound card users' preference for bandwidth wide enough to receive fifty or more signals is what makes us vulnerable. W1AW does NOT wipe out the "80m psk31 sub-band;" its CW signal occupies perhaps 50-100 Hz. Use a narrow filter, and a front-end able to handle nearby strong signals, and the problem goes away. Use PBT,even and put W1AW off the filter skirts. Cortland KA5S > [Original Message] > From: Rik van Riel > To: ; > Date: 9/22/2009 12:08:22 AM > Subject: [digitalradio] An open letter: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference > > Due to an unfortunate coincidence, W1AW's CW broadcasts pretty > much wipe out the 80m psk31 sub-band for a significant fraction > of the time. To try and address this, I have sent the following > open letter to W1AW at the ARRL, and also published it on my web > site: http://surriel.com/radio/w1aw-psk-interference > > Original Message > Subject: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference > Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:04:58 -0400 > From: Rik van Riel > To: w1aw > > To whom it may concern, > > The W1AW broadcasts are a great tradition and a help to some > amateur radio operators, and do not seem to be in the way on > most of the amateur radio bands. > > However, the W1AW CW broadcast on the 80 meter band, on 3581.5 > kHz, is right in the middle of the psk31 sub band. Needless to > say, a high power CW station pretty much wipes out the nearby > psk31 signals, which are typically transmitted at low power. > > While strictly speaking it is legal to transmit CW anywhere > on the band (I will not go into the legality of broadcasting > on the ham bands), I believe we can agree that putting a strong > signal right in the middle of a band segment dedicated to lower > power operation is not what the ARRL's "Considerate Operator's > Frequency Guide"[1] would call considerate. > > Because putting a high power CW broadcast in the middle of the psk31 > sub band (which sees activity whenever there is propagation) is > guaranteed to cause interference to active operators, I hope you > would consider moving the W1AW CW broadcast to a frequency where > interference is merely a possibility and not a guaranteed issue. > > The interference issue is especially severe due to the fact that > the W1AW transmissions are scheduled on an almost daily basis, > several times a day[2], wiping out the 80m psk31 subband for a > significant fraction of the time. > > Since the W1AW CW broadcast is an automatically controlled > transmission, maybe it would be better in the band segment assigned > to automatically controlled data stations (3585-3590). Another good > choice could be 3579.5 kHz, which would put the W1AW broadcast > 500 Hz below the psk31 segment, just like it is on the 17 and > 15 meter bands. > > kind regards, > > Rik van Riel, AB1KW > > [1] http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/conop.html > [2] http://www.arrl.org/w1aw.html#w1awsked > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > Recommended digital mode software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk > Logging Software: DXKeeper or Ham Radio Deluxe. > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
[digitalradio] Re: What's up with FLDIGI
Thanks Skip, all is well now. Andy
[digitalradio] Re: What's up with FLDIGI
I'm not sure I can ge that far Skip, it crashes about six second after booting up. Will see what I can do, Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] What's up with FLDIGI
With lots of WINMOR testing taking place, I decided to load up FLDIGI today and compare its ARQ capabilities. However, my recent fresh download and install of FLDIGI crashes within 10 seconds of booting. EventType : BEX P1 : fldigi.exe P2 : 0.0.0.0 P3 : 4a6cce2a P4 : mswsock.dll P5 : 5.1.2600.5625 P6 : 485bed11 P7 : 2c61 P8 : c409 P9 : I saw some mention of FLdigi errors a few weeks ago but did not pay a lot of attention. I had previously had FLdogi working fine on my old PC. -- Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] Re: An open letter: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference
Setting aside the misplaced sense of entitlement in that letter, there's this from http://www.arrl.org/news/features/2001/08/07/1/ QUOTE A Retrospective Today, bulletins transmitted by W1AW are received with ease throughout the country. The information transmitted covers a broad range of topics such as propagation, Keplerian elements for satellite tracking, news of interest to all hams, and DX information. On Friday UTC, a DX bulletin replaces the regular bulletins. This news is of such great interest to hams in Europe that the 20 and 40 meter rotatable beams are connected in phase with the fixed beams to assure a strong signal to Europe as well as to the continental US. The bulletins are eagerly received and rebroadcast by other clubs and users. In his book 200 Meters & Down Clinton B. DeSoto relates the story of Hiram Percy Maxim's desire to purchase an Audion tube. Unable to send a message to Springfield, Massachusetts, from Hartford, Connecticut--a distance of 30 miles--despite his 1 kW output, Maxim resorted to relaying the request via a ham in Windsor Locks, Connecticut, about halfway between. That experience prompted Maxim to conclude that a national Amateur Radio organization could coordinate the relaying of messages, and thus greatly improve the distances hams could cover. The name for the new organization reflected this purpose--the American Radio Relay League. In December 1915, each member of the newly formed League received in his mail a 16-page magazine called QST--the "December Radio Relay Bulletin." Its stated object was "to maintain the organization of the American Radio Relay League and to keep the amateur wireless operators of the country in constant touch with each other." Today, W1AW continues to provide the service that was the basis for the ARRL's founding nearly 90 years ago. ENDQUOTE Yeah, rotsa ruck getting that changed! It ain't gonna happen! 73 de W4AGA --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rik van Riel wrote: > > Due to an unfortunate coincidence, W1AW's CW broadcasts pretty > much wipe out the 80m psk31 sub-band for a significant fraction > of the time. To try and address this, I have sent the following > open letter to W1AW at the ARRL, and also published it on my web > site: http://surriel.com/radio/w1aw-psk-interference > > Original Message > Subject: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference > Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:04:58 -0400 > From: Rik van Riel > To: w1aw > > To whom it may concern, > > The W1AW broadcasts are a great tradition and a help to some > amateur radio operators, and do not seem to be in the way on > most of the amateur radio bands. > > However, the W1AW CW broadcast on the 80 meter band, on 3581.5 > kHz, is right in the middle of the psk31 sub band. Needless to > say, a high power CW station pretty much wipes out the nearby > psk31 signals, which are typically transmitted at low power. > > While strictly speaking it is legal to transmit CW anywhere > on the band (I will not go into the legality of broadcasting > on the ham bands), I believe we can agree that putting a strong > signal right in the middle of a band segment dedicated to lower > power operation is not what the ARRL's "Considerate Operator's > Frequency Guide"[1] would call considerate. > > Because putting a high power CW broadcast in the middle of the psk31 > sub band (which sees activity whenever there is propagation) is > guaranteed to cause interference to active operators, I hope you > would consider moving the W1AW CW broadcast to a frequency where > interference is merely a possibility and not a guaranteed issue. > > The interference issue is especially severe due to the fact that > the W1AW transmissions are scheduled on an almost daily basis, > several times a day[2], wiping out the 80m psk31 subband for a > significant fraction of the time. > > Since the W1AW CW broadcast is an automatically controlled > transmission, maybe it would be better in the band segment assigned > to automatically controlled data stations (3585-3590). Another good > choice could be 3579.5 kHz, which would put the W1AW broadcast > 500 Hz below the psk31 segment, just like it is on the 17 and > 15 meter bands. > > kind regards, > > Rik van Riel, AB1KW > > [1] http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/conop.html > [2] http://www.arrl.org/w1aw.html#w1awsked >
[digitalradio] TAPR's N7HPR Discusses Digital Communications Conference on RAIN Report [2 Attachments]
TAPR's N7HPR Discusses Digital Communications Conference on RAIN Report www.therainreport.com/rainreport_archive/rainreport-9-18-2009.mp3 More Info about the DCC in Chicago on September 25 - 27 at: www.tapr.org/dcc
Re: [digitalradio] Re: An open letter: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference
I have found it frustrating when I am on that freq and THEN they start up. I wish they would simply QSY when the freq appears busy. Andy K3UK On 9/22/09, frankk2ncc wrote: > > > > That sounds like a very reasonable request. Well written and good job! > > f, k2ncc > > > -- Andy
[digitalradio] Re: An open letter: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference
That sounds like a very reasonable request. Well written and good job! f, k2ncc
