On 25 Oct 2000, at 16:57, Ben A L Jemmett wrote:

> 2400?  Could've sworn 9600 baud was the limit,

I'd always thought that anything below 2400bps, it was the same
baud rate. But then we did this in class and I found out I was
mistaken. They were doing tricky things to get >1 bits/baud way
back then.

Now I think about it, anything above 19200 would have to use a
baud rate above 2400, since a complex constellation diagram of
256 (8 bits) would be limited to this. Maybe 33.6k modems do use
a 9600 baud and 3.5 bits/baud

But with my 33.6k modem, when dialling up the old dodgey
modems of the uni (they've since installed shiny new 56k ones... :)
my connection speed was always a multiple of 2400. I usually got
24000; sometimes 21600; it was fast if one got 26400. (FWIW,
when dialling up my ISP I always get 33600 so it's the uni's end)
Which all means the 33k6 modem could be using 14 bits/baud...

All these modems work(ed) with the 2400bps modem I've since
given away.

All in all, theres some pretty complicated stuff going on behind the
scenes, in the world of modems.

> but that's what happens when
> you place too much faith in faulty ORAM.  *sigh*  My 2400bps modem, though,
> does do 2400baud - it's not V.anything as far as I know.

How do you know this? It could be lying to you. Have you looked at
the output with an oscillioscope? (Not that I would bother... Maybe
its a FAX modem, and Fax machines might need the 2400baud?
Could be anything.)

> > I hope it's clear that a baud is a change in the signal?
> It is to me - I made that point a few posts back.  The official definition
> is signal level changes per second,

I've only been skimming the messages, since I've not got much
time for this kind of thing. ;-) I didn't see it, and said this for the
benefit of other listers.

--
Ben Hood
http://i.am/hoody

To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
More info can be found at;
http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html

Reply via email to