--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of "John Becker, WØJAB"
> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 9:11 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [digitalr
More akin to an AM contest of the 60s including SSB to encourage it.
RTTY is an older digital mode. It _should_ be replaced by the newer narrow
band mode just as SSB replaced AM, and for the same reasons. Equivalent
performance with improved RF usage, mainly bandwidth.
Rud Merriam K5RUD
ARES
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of "John Becker, WØJAB"
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 9:11 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] PSK63 activity!
At 08:00 PM 11/18/2007, you wrote:
>It is not like adding
Roger
regardless of what you think about Amtor and Pactor -
both are still doing very well. Other then a hand full of
CW and SSB QSO's the log book is full of both Amtor
and Pactor 1, 2 and 3.
John, W0JAB
At 08:16 PM 11/18/2007, you wrote:
>John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
>Ten extra points for usi
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
> Well just add the rest of the keyboard modes while your at it...
Great idea! With mode multipliers.
>And
> please make sure you do add both the keyboard mode of Amtor and
> Pactor.
Ten extra points for using a time machine, because that is what you'll
need to wo
At 08:00 PM 11/18/2007, you wrote:
>It is not like adding CW to a phone contest because both RTTY and PSK63 are
>keyboard modes. Phone and CW are not.
Well just add the rest of the keyboard modes while your at it...
And please make sure you do add both the keyboard mode of Amtor
and Pactor.
I st
Because it does a better job than rtty (less fills) in less space. If
everyone used PSK63 instead of RTTY, there would not be so many complaints
by non-contesters about having so little space to use during contests. A
PSK63 stations signal, operated linearly, takes up only 1/5 the space of a
RT
At 07:10 PM 11/18/2007, you wrote:
>Yes, it is very gratifying to see it finally take off a little. Now, if we
>can only convince the RTTY contest sponsers to specifically include and
>mention PSK63,
Skip with all due respect. why ?
It's not RTTY. Would this not be like adding CW to a side band
Yes, it is very gratifying to see it finally take off a little. Now, if we
can only convince the RTTY contest sponsers to specifically include and
mention PSK63, or hopefully even give it a multiplier to encourge folks to
try it...
What I noticed is that the turnover speed rivaled RTTY, with ex
Mode, and signal strength.
On Nov 18, 2007 7:30 PM, "John Becker, WØJAB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 06:10 PM 11/18/2007, you wrote:
>
>
> N3WT United States 14,073.1 PSK63
> 2007-18-11 18:19K3UK PSK63 36
> K6MKF United Stat
At 06:10 PM 11/18/2007, you wrote:
>N3WT United States 14,073.1 PSK63
>2007-18-11 18:19K3UK PSK63 36
>K6MKF United States 14,073.7 PSK63
>2007-18-11 18:26K3UK PSK63 34
>K7RE United States
I assume that Skip will be happy. His PSK63 efforts appear to be
paying off, the activity in this year's EPSK PSK63 QSO Party was quite
high. At one time, I counted 15 simeukatenous QSO's in my 20M
waterfall. Again, European activity seemed quite high compared to
North American. I saw no Asian
Well, he has a very good point that perhaps you should consider.
Using more bandwidth than you need to communicate is worse than using too
much power.
73,
Charles Brabham, N5PVL
- Original Message -
From: "Roger J. Buffington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 20
I have a problem, just looking for confirmation.
I think I have lost the Audio out of the Data Port on my TS480. Just to
confirm. I Plugged earphones into the spkr jack and the mon jack on the back
of the USB, No Sound, so I am pretty sure it has a problem. the xmt circuit
is working o
Oops, sent too quickly. What I meant was: "That ( speech recognition
not being real time) is not entirely true." There are many commercial
packages that do minimal-lag "realtime" speech recognition. One
example would be the voice command features built into Apple's OSX.
Another would be any one of
That is not entirely true. Besides, I wasn't focusing so much on their
"real" research as the voice characterization research that they had
to do before they could usefully work on recognition. It turns out
that the very areas that are most necessary for digital voice
recognition are the ones most
I suppose if the pictures had to get through because of an emergency, the
VFO could have been used as per Hollingsworth's comments @ Dayton. Maybe a
secondary frequency should be selected for the net or a VFO procedure since
none of us "own" a frequency no matter how long we may have been using it
Robert,
I agree. The thing that is different is that speech recognition is not real
time. Voice over the radio is real time.
Mike n6ief
On Nov 18, 2007 10:46 AM, Robert Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> There are several (military/gov) standard intelligibility tests that
> do a pretty
There are several (military/gov) standard intelligibility tests that
do a pretty good job of scoring what most humans can and can not
reliably understand. You might try taking a look at them to get some
ideas of which voice characteristics make the most difference to
intelligibility. There is actua
Which CQ Magazine contest are you referring to that runs for 3 days and was
running yesterday morning?
There was no contest shown on their website and usually their contests are
48 hours not 72.
Just curious.
Barry VE3CDX/W7
_
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTE
Cool!
Thanks Paul.
Gary
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "paul181696"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Gary
>
> If its around 14.076 then its JT65A.
> You will find stations TX/RX in even/odd minute segments.
> Google JT65A for the software package called WSJT by K1JT.
>
> 73
>
> Paul
>
Gary
If its around 14.076 then its JT65A.
You will find stations TX/RX in even/odd minute segments.
Google JT65A for the software package called WSJT by K1JT.
73
Paul
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "grwescom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> OK, I give up. What is the slow MFSK I am see
This is likely a mode developed for moonbounce/meteor scatter that some
have been using on HF to see another hams callsigns and signal report
with weak signals. JT-65A perhaps?
73,
Rick, KV9U
grwescom wrote:
> OK, I give up. What is the slow MFSK I am seeing on 20 meters lately.
> It idle
OK, I give up. What is the slow MFSK I am seeing on 20 meters lately.
It idles at the lowest frequency an looks like there may be around 16
frequencies used?
Gary N0GW
OK, I give up. What is the slow MFSK I am seeing on 20 meters lately.
It idles at the lowest frequency an looks like there may be around
frequencies used?
Gary N0GW
Hi Vojtech,
Thank you for your reply to my papers. I will do more work on the phonemes.
The project I want to do uses new computers that were no available 10 years
ago. Every 10 mS a decision is made to send a one or a zero. To make that
decision I have 68 parallel FFT's running in the background.
To the great group of Digital Pic Guys that we had on 7.178 on Sat.
I apologize for not being able to have a net this Sunday morning.
I apologize the the arrogant and rude hams that do contesting and don't
listen to a freq before transmitting, and do splits without
listening and move w
Welcome to ve3lvv, DRCC # 1611.
Andy K3UK.
New release (4.5) of MULTIPSK
RX/TX: PSK10/BPSK31-63-125/QPSK31-63-125/CHIP
(64/128)/PSKFEC31/PSKAM10-31-50/PSK63F - PSK220F + DIGISSTV
"Run"/DTMF/CW/CCW/CCW-FSK/THROB/THROBX/DTMF/MFSK8/
MFSK16 (+ SSTV)/MIL-STD-188-141A (+ARQ FAE)/ALE400/OLIVIA/CONTESTIA/RTTYM/
VOICE/DominoF DF/DominoEX/MT63/RTT
29 matches
Mail list logo