Thank You Brad for you usual clear headed analysis
of the US situation.
It is indeeda very sad statement about some
US hams that they do not trust others to abide by a Gentlemen's agreement and
that they believe that very parochial attitudes must apply to the rest of the
world who share
Haveseveral wide screen HD TV's... Spent
$5,500 for a 51" plasma about 2 years ago.. which I bought online at what was
then a good price... By comparison, the latest one was just spent $949 for a 32"
LCD at Costco which currently sits over my radio station desk and looks really
cool
At 10:32 PM 1/28/06, you wrote:
Respectfully, you are talking about compressing the content. That won't help
with cramming a 5600 baud circuit into a 2400hz bandwidth. It might help send
more content faster - making a slower circuit look like a 5600 baud
circuit, but it won't help put a 5600 baud
What kind of RF bandwidth would the 3 Kbs require?
Jim
WA0LYK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Arthur J. Lekstutis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are voice encoding schemes that require much less. I've
experimented with this codec (for example), and found it quite good
even
at 3k bits
No, the claim I am investigating is concerning a statement that there is a
need in amateur radio for a new mode with a symbol rate of 5600baud and a
bandwidth of 2400hz.
I'm very interested in how such a feat can be accomplished.
I'm with you. My first thought is that such a thing would be
from the RSGB, Improving Bandplan Compliance, paper number 138
-An increasing proportion of the Amateur Radio community is using non-CW modes
and deploying beacons within the CW communication sub-bands.
-national societies
Yes, 16QAM or 8PSK, if possible. QPSK with its
sidebands would be broader than 2400 Hz.
Jose, CO2JA
--- Tim Gorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Respectfully, you are talking about compressing the
content. That won't help
with cramming a 5600 baud circuit into a 2400hz
bandwidth. It might
Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org is the address you enter.
Andy K3UK
-- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Thomas Giella KN4LF
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone know the exact address to type into the telnet window in
MixW to access the K3UK Digital Telnet? I guess the port is 4?!
Also my WWV
Greetings All
I have just got my PSK31 operational. Now I am looking around for RTTY
and FSK software. So which is best?
cheers Graeme zl1gbb
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector :
Andy:
More often than not, I do not connect to your cluster. In fact, very
rarely have I actually made it in. Human nature leads me to suspect it
can't be my fault but that generally is not the case. Maybe you can
give me a pointer.
I put Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org into my browser (either IE
Howdy Graeme:
For all-around digital ops, I like MixW. It has a ton of modes to play
with and has a pretty nice interface. I believe MultiPSK also has a
bunch of modes and is free. I prefer MixW because the user interface
is a bit easier to navigate.
73,
Kev - K4VD
On 1/29/06, zl1gbb [EMAIL
If Nyquist is the governing limit, how do computer modem designers
get 56 kbps through a 3 khz telphone line? That's a C/B of more than
18.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Tim Gorman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
No, the claim I am investigating is concerning a
Sorry if this seem obvious, but it needs to be
asked:what video is the store feeding their sets? A standard DVD
player? (yes, some stores are that lame.) You'll never see the
difference that way. An HD set has to have a HD signal to show you what it
can do. Since a DTV can't display a
Most telephone circuits have a bandwidth of about 2400hz which will support a
symbol rate of 2400baud. They just use a modulation scheme that allows
multiple bits per baud to be be sent, eg 32QAM or higher.
They can't shove more than 2400 symbol changes per second down a pipe of
2400hz
I suspect they mean 5600 bits per second.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Tim Gorman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Most telephone circuits have a bandwidth of about 2400hz which
will support a
symbol rate of 2400baud. They just use a modulation scheme that
This is a commonly confused area. And you asked the right question.
Nyquist is not the governing limit. The Nyquist limit applies to
symbols/sec, not bits/sec. A symbol can carry more than one bit.
(Interestingly, one of the first such applications was early wire
telegraphy systems that
As a non-engineer I am struggling to keep up here. ;-\
... it is the Shannon limit, which is s/n based, that
governs bits, and the Nyquist limit that governs symbols
(baud).
Can you explain why the symbol (symbol rate) construct
allows more efficient communications than a bit?
I
Put in a software that handles all three, for instance the DXLab suite of
software contains WinWarbler that will handle all that, plus do CW and Voice
keying. Great number of users who are very helpful in getting newbies, and
some of us oldies straightened out in how to use it. The author is
My operating schedule:
Monday January 30, 2006
-0030 UTC 1807.500 PSK31
0030-0100 UTC 1807.500 OLIVIA 500/8
0100-0130 UTC 1837.500 PSK31
0130-0200 UTC 1837.500 OLIVIA 500/16
0200-0230 UTC 1807.500 PSK31
0230-0300 UTC 1807.500 OLIVIA 500/8
0300-0330 UTC 1837.500 PSK31
0330-0400 UTC
All:
I use an old Kam Plus and N1MM software for contest RTTY, and would like to
use it for the rare Pactor or G-tor QSO.
Finished setting up the macros and would like to run a test to see if all is
working correctly in TOR mode.
Is there anyone out there with Pactor or G-tor capability who
You quote the RSGB statement of the fact
that:
"-The IARU Region 1
HF Bandplan has served the amateur community very well for many
years,"
Need I say any more...
What few minor non compliance issues that exist
are being addressed by the Ham community themselves and not bythe slow and
That depends entirely on the modulation method. At 8 bits per symbol,
that could be as low as 375hz. Eight bits per symbol is very sensitive
to noise though, and probably isn't interesting to this group. PSK31
sends one bit per Hz bandwidth and is much more robust on HF, and is
probably a
If you use Multipsk along with DXLab, it can act as the CAT control for
MultiPSK and much more depending upon which modules you select. Then you
will have most all sound card modes available to you. I have been very
surprised how well it works. It does require a pretty good computer.
73,
Its 22:55 and I can not connect to the cluster Andy, Problems here or
there?
Ron W4LDE
obrienaj wrote:
Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org is the address you enter.
Andy K3UK
-- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Thomas Giella KN4LF
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone know the exact address to
A more complete context of the proposal would include the following:
- - - - -
10. The real catalyst for change, however, is the need to permit higher
speed data in the Amateur bands from 1.8 MHz to 450 MHz, above which
there are no limits except to contain the transmitted signal within the
DXLab applications are more sensitive to operating system than
processor performance. Members of the Windows 9X family will limit
the number of applications that can be simultaneously run. This
family suffers from an architectural kernel defect that forces all
applications to share a fixed
Again, this is a way to get 5600 bits per second into a 2400hz bandwidth by
sending 2.4 bits per symbol.
It won't help get 5600 symbols per second into a 2400 hz bandwidth.
tim ab0wr
On Sunday 29 January 2006 09:00, Jose Amador wrote:
Yes, 16QAM or 8PSK, if possible. QPSK with its
Just got my Yaesu FT-890 hooked up but don't yet
have the computer connected.
Am I hearing you right now?
Ooops! Somehting real strong just popped up on freq,
also digital.
Thomas Giella KN4LF wrote:
My operating schedule:
Monday January 30, 2006
-0030 UTC 1807.500 PSK31
0030-0100
This was my opinion also. In order to get 5600baud, even in a 6khz bandwidth,
significant power levels will be needed to reach a signal to noise ratio
sufficient to allow the baud rate to be realized.
Even a 5600bps rate in a 2400hz ratio is going to require a HUGE signal to
noise ratio be
Which sideband is used for Dominoex?
Dan N0ZIZ
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)
Yahoo!
Is anyone else on here concerned that the ARRL bandwidth regulation proposal
removes all baud rate limitations on signals in the HF bands and 2 meters?
The only limitation will be the bandwidth limitation that will cap the baud
rate.
Removal of 97.307(f) limitations means we will see 3500
YES - IT IS A PROBLEM
- Original Message -
From: Tim Gorman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 11:41 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF
Is anyone else on here concerned that the ARRL bandwidth
32 matches
Mail list logo
