This project is to create a small board that when plugged into a PC USB port,
will provide an interface to a DVSI digital voice VOCODER chip. The idea is to
be able to use a PC and soundcard and listen and talk to a D-Star voice data
stream over the internet. Other uses would be to create a
Yes, the laws of physics do get in the way.
They say that wider bandwidth is the technique to use. The trick in that
situation is that the bandwidth is used by multiple users at the same time.
Everyone is background noise to the other guy.
Rud Merriam K5RUD
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
I'm not trying to be a pain in the butt, honest.
If one put ALE400 and RTTY side by side for the average ham ALE-400
would be a hard sell. Same speed in twice the bandwidth.
I guess one may conclude all the bells and whistles of ALE, ARQ etc
are doubling the bandwidth requirements. One can
Hi Brian,
At 08:29 AM 11/2/2007, you wrote:
I'm not trying to be a pain in the butt, honest.
Neither is my reply meant to be anything other than pointing out the obvious.
We need narrower bandwidths not wider bandwidths for real progress
with the real life crowded bands. I think that is
This is an interesting paper (http://tinyurl.com/d5bdo) by John Costas from
1959. It elaborates the point I made earlier today that, counter intuitive
as it seems, the better approach for communications in a non-channelized
environment is broad bandwidth modes. In that mode of operation everyone
This is a GREAT idea. I was just looking around earlier this week, and
wondering why there were no new AMBE20xx projects being done.
Another great use, which I'd be very interested in, would be to decode
APCO P25 encoded speech (note that the AMBE is downwards compatible with
IMBE at the
ALE 400 and RTTY are not all that different in bandwidth. RTTY is wider
than we might like to admit depending upon how you measure the drop off
at the edges.
The difference is dramatic between the two modes in terms of ability to
work under more difficult conditions and deeper into the noise.
last night while trying ale400 on 40m, one of the jerks with the wide
pactor signal came up on top.
as i cursed the jerk in absentia, an ale141a signal came on and
covered up the pactor !
possible moral..if one group of operators is allowed to get away
with it, soon everyone will do
What is your point?
LA5VNA Setinar
Brian A skrev:
So one gets the 60wpm of 170Hz shift RTTY for a 400 Hz bandwidth?
73 de Brian/K3KO
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Mark Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
ALE400 – Narrow band ALE mode now
So one gets the 60wpm of 170Hz shift RTTY for a 400 Hz bandwidth?
73 de Brian/K3KO
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Mark Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ALE400 Narrow band ALE mode now available
Patrick F6CTE has announced that a narrow band version of the
popular Automatic Link
Hello all,
I propose a test in 14074 KHz USB on the XCVR (AF more or less 1625 Hz)
to-morrow saturday at 11h00 UTC. I will call CQ in ARQ FAE. PSE, don't forget
to push the RS ID detection button.
See the form Non selective QSO in ARQ FAE in the document
ALE_and_ALE400_easy_with_Multipsk.doc.
Hello Brian and all,
I don't think there is to compare RTTY with ALE400. The objectives are really
different and there is nothing common. ALE and ALE400 permits a rich system of
communications with different possibilities (see my paper ALE and ALE400
easy). Without speaking of PC ALE and Mars
12 matches
Mail list logo
