Re: [digitalradio] Sound card install problem
I already have the pack on my HD, as I do use automatic updates. So, my question is... if you have the pack already on your HD, how do you take care of the install when prompted to insert the CD with the service pack on it ? Andy. On Nov 19, 2007 10:40 PM, r_lwesterfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you turn Automatic Updates on, it should load in less than a day or so of leaving your computer on. Or you could go to Microsoft Update and let it install from there. After that, I would go to the sound card web site and download the latest driver . . . should work. Rick – KH2DF From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew O'Brien Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 9:00 PM To: DIGITALRADIO Subject: [digitalradio] Sound card install problem I have been having a couple of small but odd-ball issues with Multipsk and Microkeyer and thought I would try another sound card , just for the heck of it. I disabled my on-board sound card and installed a Creative Audigy PCI card. I have installed many soundcards over the years but ran in to an basic problem with the latest card. When I attempt the software install from the supplied CD, it eventually asks me to insert the XP HE path that contains service pack 2. I have no CD for my OS, the PC came with XP HE already installed . The install attempt fails the first time, when I try it a second time the XP service pack question does not come up and I get a installed successfully message. After a reboot, the new hardware detected comes up, the soundcard drivers are not installed successfully. I have been to busy at the office to get home in time to call Creative's help line. Anyone have any ideas how I get the service pack 2 stuff ? Maybe it is on my HD somewhere ? Andy K3UK -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ) Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: digital voice within 100 Hz bandwidth
Bob, I was thinking about an SSB signal that is off frequency. Most of the time I could get the information I need to get the contact. I never intended this to be hi-fidelity. I just want it to be good enough. Miken6ief On Nov 18, 2007 12:11 PM, Robert Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 necessary for human brains to recognize and interpret. Voice is a mixed-information-density signal, and if you simplify the signal by filtering out and discarding the less necessary elements, you have significantly reduced the effort the next stage has to do, whether it's digital encoding or speech recognition. On Nov 18, 2007 1:31 PM, Mike Lebo [EMAIL PROTECTED]mike-lebo%40ieee.org wrote: 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]robertt.thompson%40gmail.com wrote: 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 actually a surprising amount of data out there, especially if you include the data peripheral to the various computerized speech translator research projects. It's not *exactly* signal processing... but understanding what parts of the signal matter the most can be surprisingly helpful. This may be unusually productive, because as of yet there hasn't been a huge amount of cross-discipline work between the codec researchers and the speech-to-meaning researchers. While there's a lot of duplicate research in there, it tends to be from slightly different perspectives, and the stereo view can sometimes help. On Nov 18, 2007 9:12 AM, Mike Lebo [EMAIL PROTECTED]mike-lebo%40ieee.org wrote: 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. I believe the brain could handle mispronounce words better than you think. Mike On Nov 17, 2007 3:55 PM, r_lwesterfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] r_lwesterfield%40bellsouth.net wrote: I have a few radios (ARC-210-1851, PSC-5D, PRC-117F) at work that operate in MELP for a vocoder – Mixed Excitation Linear Prediction. We have found MELP to be superior (more human-like voice qualities – less Charlie Brown's teacher) to LPC-10 but we use far larger bandwidths than 100 khz. I do not know how well any of this will play out at such a narrow bandwidth. Listening to Charlie Brown's teacher will send you running away quickly and you should think of your listeners . . . they will tire very quickly. Just because voice can be sent at such narrower bandwidths does not necessarily mean that people will like to listen to it. Rick – KH2DF From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.comdigitalradio%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Vojtech Bubník Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 9:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mike-lebo%40ieee.org; digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: digital voice within 100 Hz bandwidth Hi Mike. I studied some aspects of voice recognition about 10 years ago when I thought of joining a research group at Czech Technical University in Prague. I have a 260 pages text book on my book shelf on voice recognition. Voice signal has high redundancy if compared to a text transcription. But there is additional information stored in the voice signal like pitch, intonation, speed. One could estimate for example mood of the speaker from the utterance. Voice tract could be described by a generator (tone for vowels, hiss for consonants) and filter. Translating voice into generator and filter coefficients greatly decreases voice data redundancy. This is roughly the technique that the common voice codecs do. GSM voice compression is a kind of Algebraic
Re: [digitalradio] Re: digital voice within 100 Hz bandwidth
Vojtech, Thank you for reading my papers. I have no intention of re-inventing the wheel. The project is like echolink and does not understand speech or change to text. Books that have been done in the past did not have narrow bandwidth as their main objective. I do not need hi-fidelity to understand what is being said. I am used to slightly de-tuned SSB voice. I just need something that is good enough. My big problem is that none of this will ever happen unless someone steps up and wants to help me learn how to modify free, public domain, C++ software. Could you or someone you know be that person? 73's Miken6ief On Nov 17, 2007 7:11 AM, Vojtěch Bubník [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Mike. I studied some aspects of voice recognition about 10 years ago when I thought of joining a research group at Czech Technical University in Prague. I have a 260 pages text book on my book shelf on voice recognition. Voice signal has high redundancy if compared to a text transcription. But there is additional information stored in the voice signal like pitch, intonation, speed. One could estimate for example mood of the speaker from the utterance. Voice tract could be described by a generator (tone for vowels, hiss for consonants) and filter. Translating voice into generator and filter coefficients greatly decreases voice data redundancy. This is roughly the technique that the common voice codecs do. GSM voice compression is a kind of Algebraic Code Excited Linear Prediction. Another interesting codec is AMBE (Advanced Multi-Band Excitation) used by DSTAR system. GSM half-rate codec squeezes voice to 5.6kbit/sec, AMBE to 3.6 kbps. Both systems use excitation tables, but AMBE is more efficient and closed source. I think the clue to the efficiency is in size and quality of the excitation tables. To create such an algorithm requires considerable amount of research and data analysis. The intelligibility of GSM or AMBE codecs is very good. You could buy the intelectual property of the AMBE codec by buying the chip. There are couple of projects running trying to built DSTAR into legacy transceivers. About 10 years ago we at OK1KPI club experimented with an echolink like system. We modified speakfreely software to control FM transceiver and we added web interface to control tuning and subtone of the transceiver. It was a lot of fun and a very unique system at that time. http://www.speakfreely.org/ The best compression factor offers LPC-10 codec (3460kbps), but the sound is very robot-like and quite hard to understand. At the end we reverted to GSM. I think IVOX is a variant of the LPC system that we tried. Your proposal is to increase compression rate by transmitting phonemes. I once had the same idea, but I quickly rejected it. Although it may be a nice exercise, I find it not very useless until good continuous speech multi-speaker multi-language recognition systems are available. I will try to explain my reasoning behind that statement. Let's classify voice recognition systems by the implementation complexity: 1) Single-speaker, limited set of utterances recognized (control your desktop by voice) 2) Multiple-speaker, limited set of utterances recognized (automated phone system) 3) dictating system 4) continuous speech transcription 5) speech recognition and understanding Your proposal will need implement most of the code from 4) or 5) to be really usable and it has to be reliable. State of the art voice recognition systems use hidden Markov models to detect phonemes. Phoneme is searched by traversing state diagram by evaluating multiple recorded spectra. The phoneme is soft-decoded. Output of the classifier is a list of phonemes with their probabilities of detection assigned. To cope with phoneme smearing on their boundaries, either sub-phonemes or phoneme pairs need to be detected. After the phonemes are classified, they are chained into words. Depending on the dictionary, most probable words are picked. You suppose that your system will not need it. But the trouble are consonants. They carry much less energy than vowels and are much easier to be confused. Dictionary is used to pick some second highest probability detected consonants in the word. Not only the dictionary, but also the phoneme classifier is language dependent. I think human brain works in the same way. Imagine learning foreign language. Even if you are able to recognize slowly pronounced words, you will be unable to pick them in a fast pronounced sentence. The word will sound different. Human needs considerable training to understand a language. You could decrease complexity of the decoder by constraining the detection to slowly dictated separate words. If you simply pick the high probability phoneme, you will experience comprehension problems of people with hearing loss. Oh yes, I am currently working for hearing instrument manufacturer (I have nothing to do with merck.com).
[digitalradio] Sound Card Interfacing.
Hi All, I am wondering if it is possible to use one of these USB headsets as my sound interface to my TS-480S/AT, with some modification (cut the headset off). I brought one of these awhile ago cheap (on special), a PowerWave Speaker/Mic headset, and have been using it on my computer for Skype. Audio sounds good, so thought I might use it for digital modes, and would allow me to switch over with different computers easily. I am guessing the sound card gear is in the bubble unit along the cable, so all I would need to do is ensure I have speaker and mic from inside the headset itself. I would like to buy a proper USB computer/radio interface, but this is low on my priority list (wife wants new stuff for the new house). So if this works, I might try and go this way. Anyone done it this way? If so, how did it work out? If not, anything I should be looking at? Now after all that I need to get an HF antenna up, and get some radios on air. Thanks in advance. Kevin, ZL1KFM. Get Skype and call me for free. sparc_nz Description: Binary data
Re: [digitalradio] Sound Card Interfacing.
I am wondering if it is possible to use one of these USB headsets as my sound interface to my TS-480S/AT, with some modification (cut the headset off). Kevin, you can use use a USB sound adapter from Geeks.com http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=HE-280Bcat=GDT It works great. If you have any feedback or ground loop problems, just insert an isolation transformer in the transmit audio line. 73, Skip KH6TY
[digitalradio] Building Wireless Community Networks (Available from ARRL)
Building Wireless Community Networks -- 2nd edition, by Rob Flickenger This book is about getting people online using wireless network technology. The 802.11b standard (also known as WiFi) makes it possible to network towns, schools, neighborhoods, small business, and almost any kind of organization. All that's required is a willingness to cooperate and share resources. The first edition of this book helped thousands of people engage in community networking activities. This revised and expanded edition adds coverage on new network monitoring tools and techniques, regulations affecting wireless deployment, and IP network administration, including DNS and IP Tunneling. 182 pages. Second edition, © 2003, published by O'Reilly Associates, Inc. (ISBN: 0-596-00502-4) #9147 -- $29.95 Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
[digitalradio] 802.11 Wireless Networks: The Definitive Guide (Available from ARRL)
802.11 Wireless Networks: The Definitive Guide -- by Matthew S. Gast Creating and administering wireless networks. As we all know by now, wireless networks offer many advantages over fixed (or wired) networks. Foremost on that list is mobility, since going wireless frees you from the tether of an Ethernet cable at a desk. But that's just the tip of the cable-free iceberg. Wireless networks are also more flexible, faster and easier for you to use, and more affordable to deploy and maintain. The de facto standard for wireless networking is the 802.11 protocol, which includes Wi-Fi (the wireless standard known as 802.11b) and its faster cousin, 802.11g. With easy-to-install 802.11 network hardware available everywhere you turn, the choice seems simple, and many people dive into wireless computing with less thought and planning than they'd give to a wired network. But it's wise to be familiar with both the capabilities and risks associated with the 802.11 protocols. And 802.11 Wireless Networks: The Definitive Guide, 2nd Edition is the perfect place to start. This updated edition covers everything you'll ever need to know about wireless technology. Designed with the system administrator or serious home user in mind, it's a no-nonsense guide for setting up 802.11 on Windows and Linux. Among the wide range of topics covered are discussions on: deployment considerations network monitoring and performance tuning wireless security issues how to use and select access points network monitoring essentials wireless card configuration security issues unique to wireless networks With wireless technology, the advantages to its users are indeed plentiful. Companies no longer have to deal with the hassle and expense of wiring buildings, and households with several computers can avoid fights over who's online. And now, with 802.11 Wireless Networks: The Definitive Guide, 2nd Edition, you can integrate wireless technology into your current infrastructure with the utmost confidence. Also available: Building Wireless Community Networks 654 pages. 2nd edition, © 2005, published by O'Reilly Associates, Inc. (ISBN: 0-596-10052-3) #9715 -- $44.95 Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
[digitalradio] APRS -- Moving Hams on Radio and the Internet (Available from ARRL)
APRS -- Moving Hams on Radio and the Internet -- A Guide to the Automatic Position Reporting System by Stan Horzepa, WA1LOU APRS is among the most popular activities using personal computers in ham radio applications. Getting started often requires little more than a VHF radio and computer. With a portable Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver, you have precise position information at your fingertips. Connect the GPS receiver to your APRS station, and you can transmit your location information even as you're moving! Track moving objects on maps (other stations, public service vehicles, marathon runners, etc.). Display weather statistics and storm warnings. Find a hidden transmitter or jammer. Access the APRS network on the Internet (even without a radio!) The future for APRS applications seems limitless! In this book, you'll learn how to configure hardware and software to make the best use of your APRS station. Software examples include programs for Windows, Mac and Linux. Follow detailed discussions of APRS operation and technical support. To help you get stated, there's also a complete Glossary of Terms and a summary of APRS software commands. APRS -- Moving Hams on Radio and the Internet is the third APRS book written by QST columnist and ARRL author Stan Horzepa, WA1LOU. Softcover. © 2004, The American Radio Relay League, Inc. APRS is a registered trademark of APRS Engineering LLC, which reserves all rights to its use for commercial products. (ISBN: 0-87259-916-7) #9167 -- $17.95 Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ
Re: [digitalradio] I Apologize
Hi John: The problem is that during a contest ,, contesters have all the channels, and it doesn't matter if you do find a clear spot,, contestester will move in within in a kc and take out ANY other communications that are going on.. whether it be ssb qso, digital sstv, sstv.. If the idea is to weed out the week,, take and put all the contester in 100kc together and let the screaming begin,, but no lets spread them out over the entire band and make it miserable for everyone who isn't contesting.. ( sorry about the high horse, but when contest are on,, it just ruins my days) Garrett / AA0OI - Original Message From: John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 7:19:59 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] I Apologize Long long time ago (1969) a friend (now SK) who help me become a ham told me that contest weed out the weak. I for one love contest. Be it SSB CW or RTTY. It's a bit like what they say about TV. If you don't like what you are watching change the channel. Same holds true ham radio. All 6 of my HF rigs has a OFF switch. John, W0JAB At 06:45 PM 11/19/2007, you wrote: not if there is a CQ contester every 1kz running 1500 watts (or more) screaming CQ CONTEST every 10 seconds. You can't pick a secondary freq, if there are none empty. And its getting so someone has a contest everyother week end. Thank God for week days..!! Garrett / AA0OI15c19b3e. jpg Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
[digitalradio] Re: digital voice within 100 Hz bandwidth
Books that have been done in the past did not have narrow bandwidth as their main objective. Look at the LPC-10 codec. You could try it by downloading internet telephony software from speakfreely.org. The codec was developed with the low bandwidth in mind and its intelligibility is on the threshold what I would accept. If IVOX is able to squeeze LPC-10 to 1200bps with the same intelligibility, than it is great. The proposal that you gave will certainly not work. You describe a system, that computes spectrum and compares it to a library of spectra, one by one. It may work for some vowels, but it will certainly not work for the other phonemes. The task is much more difficult than you think. The fricatives - d, t, f, s etc are hard to detect. The sound is quite complex and spectrum of a single phoneme changes in time. The sound starts with quiet pause, then explosion, then some transient of the explosion. The hidden Markov classifier is a kind of probabilistic network, is often used on spectra and is a good system for detection of phonemes. As I already wrote, if you get the consonants wrong, your system will mumble. Even for vowels, you would have to keep more spectra for a single phoneme in the lookup table, sampled for different pitch. You don't want to learn to speak with a constant pitch. Phoneme detection is described in every voice recognition text book. Writing papers about phoneme detection for HAM radio is reinventing the wheel. 73, Vojtech OK1IAK
Re: [digitalradio] I Apologize
Sorry you feel that way Garrett. But it's been that way the 37 years that I have been a ham. Since many do get on just to work the contest how about putting those that are not contesting in that 100kc ? The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few ! At 05:13 PM 11/20/2007, you wrote: Hi John: The problem is that during a contest ,, contesters have all the channels, and it doesn't matter if you do find a clear spot,, contestester will move in within in a kc and take out ANY other communications that are going on.. whether it be ssb qso, digital sstv, sstv.. If the idea is to weed out the week,, take and put all the contester in 100kc together and let the screaming begin,, but no lets spread them out over the entire band and make it miserable for everyone who isn't contesting.. ( sorry about the high horse, but when contest are on,, it just ruins my days) Garrett / AA0OI
[digitalradio] Re: I Apologize
Garrett, I have always wondered why the FCC allows this to happen. It seems to me that they are violating the rules. I have a similar question about Pactor 3. Can someone explain why it is allowed? My impression is that it is wider than 500 Hz and isn't that the maximum bandwidth? Howard K5HB --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, AA0OI [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi John: The problem is that during a contest ,, contesters have all the channels, and it doesn't matter if you do find a clear spot,, contestester will move in within in a kc and take out ANY other communications that are going on.. whether it be ssb qso, digital sstv, sstv.. If the idea is to weed out the week,, take and put all the contester in 100kc together and let the screaming begin,, but no lets spread them out over the entire band and make it miserable for everyone who isn't contesting.. ( sorry about the high horse, but when contest are on,, it just ruins my days) Garrett / AA0OI - Original Message From: John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 7:19:59 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] I Apologize Long long time ago (1969) a friend (now SK) who help me become a ham told me that contest weed out the weak. I for one love contest. Be it SSB CW or RTTY. It's a bit like what they say about TV. If you don't like what you are watching change the channel. Same holds true ham radio. All 6 of my HF rigs has a OFF switch. John, W0JAB At 06:45 PM 11/19/2007, you wrote: not if there is a CQ contester every 1kz running 1500 watts (or more) screaming CQ CONTEST every 10 seconds. You can't pick a secondary freq, if there are none empty. And its getting so someone has a contest everyother week end. Thank God for week days..!! Garrett / AA0OI15c19b3e. jpg Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
[digitalradio] Important info for digital operators: signal quality
Ladies and Gentlemen I respectfully request that each of us take a moment to read page 50 in ARRL's QST magazine, December 2007 edition. It addresses signal quality of digital transmissions using the PC soundcard, and how to avoid over-driving the signal. Overdriving causes spallter and occupies unnecessary bandwidth. Specific, simple detailed steps are provided. Terrific explanation and great info! Please share this with other hams, new and old. Some of us (myself included) have made mistakes in the past. While these were made out of a lack of knowledge/skill, it is the responsibility of those more experienced in our hobby to share and help educate others. The result will be more proficient operations by all, through cleaner signals and proper operation of our equipment. If you do not subscribe to QST, I would be happy to share the summary of the article (without violating Copyright). Mark, WD4ELG http://wd4elg.net http://wd4elg.net (30+ years in the hobby, and learning new things every day)
RE: [digitalradio] Sound card install problem
Hello Andy, When I really felt like being a risk taker, I have Google searched for SP2 on the web and downloaded it that way - who knows what might be inside that download but it worked for me. It might work for you depending on your particular needs. Rick - KH2DF -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew O'Brien Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 4:30 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Sound card install problem I already have the pack on my HD, as I do use automatic updates. So, my question is... if you have the pack already on your HD, how do you take care of the install when prompted to insert the CD with the service pack on it ? Andy. On Nov 19, 2007 10:40 PM, r_lwesterfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you turn Automatic Updates on, it should load in less than a day or so of leaving your computer on. Or you could go to Microsoft Update and let it install from there. After that, I would go to the sound card web site and download the latest driver . . . should work. Rick - KH2DF From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew O'Brien Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 9:00 PM To: DIGITALRADIO Subject: [digitalradio] Sound card install problem I have been having a couple of small but odd-ball issues with Multipsk and Microkeyer and thought I would try another sound card , just for the heck of it. I disabled my on-board sound card and installed a Creative Audigy PCI card. I have installed many soundcards over the years but ran in to an basic problem with the latest card. When I attempt the software install from the supplied CD, it eventually asks me to insert the XP HE path that contains service pack 2. I have no CD for my OS, the PC came with XP HE already installed . The install attempt fails the first time, when I try it a second time the XP service pack question does not come up and I get a installed successfully message. After a reboot, the new hardware detected comes up, the soundcard drivers are not installed successfully. I have been to busy at the office to get home in time to call Creative's help line. Anyone have any ideas how I get the service pack 2 stuff ? Maybe it is on my HD somewhere ? Andy K3UK -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ) Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Sound card install problem
Andy, on my hard drive there is a directory C:\Windows\ServicePackFiles\I386. This may be what the program is looking for, if it exists on your drive too. Howard K5HB - Original Message From: Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 4:30:29 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Sound card install problem I already have the pack on my HD, as I do use automatic updates. So, my question is... if you have the pack already on your HD, how do you take care of the install when prompted to insert the CD with the service pack on it ? Andy. On Nov 19, 2007 10:40 PM, r_lwesterfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you turn Automatic Updates on, it should load in less than a day or so of leaving your computer on. Or you could go to Microsoft Update and let it install from there. After that, I would go to the sound card web site and download the latest driver . . . should work. Rick – KH2DF From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew O'Brien Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 9:00 PM To: DIGITALRADIO Subject: [digitalradio] Sound card install problem I have been having a couple of small but odd-ball issues with Multipsk and Microkeyer and thought I would try another sound card , just for the heck of it. I disabled my on-board sound card and installed a Creative Audigy PCI card. I have installed many soundcards over the years but ran in to an basic problem with the latest card. When I attempt the software install from the supplied CD, it eventually asks me to insert the XP HE path that contains service pack 2. I have no CD for my OS, the PC came with XP HE already installed . The install attempt fails the first time, when I try it a second time the XP service pack question does not come up and I get a installed successfully message. After a reboot, the new hardware detected comes up, the soundcard drivers are not installed successfully. I have been to busy at the office to get home in time to call Creative's help line. Anyone have any ideas how I get the service pack 2 stuff ? Maybe it is on my HD somewhere ? Andy K3UK -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ) Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: I Apologize
Howard Brown wrote: Garrett, I have always wondered why the FCC allows this to happen. It seems to me that they are violating the rules. I have a similar question about Pactor 3. Can someone explain why it is allowed? My impression is that it is wider than 500 Hz and isn't that the maximum bandwidth? Howard K5HB Keep in mind that the enforcement resources of the FCC are pretty limited, and Pactor 3 is not all that ubiquitous. Just because the FCC doesn't put a stop to things like Pactor 3 being too wide, Pactor robot stations transmitting without listening, etc. does not mean that these things are legal. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: I Apologize
Roger your beating a very dead horse. In just 41 days all the wide robots will have to be in their own sub-band. I sure hope this anti-wide stuff will stop soon. John, W0JAB Keep in mind that the enforcement resources of the FCC are pretty limited, and Pactor 3 is not all that ubiquitous. Just because the FCC doesn't put a stop to things like Pactor 3 being too wide, Pactor robot stations transmitting without listening, etc. does not mean that these things are legal. de Roger W6VZV Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: I Apologize
John, At this time there is no strict limit on digital mode width except: 97.307 Emission standards. (f)(2)No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. This refers primarily to the HF bands. Since the exact bandwidth of HF phone is not specified in the rules, this is not a hard and fast number either. Pactor 3 is completely legal in the U.S. at this time and will continue to be legal unless there is a major change in the rules. What is it that will affect wide bandwidth automatic stations after the first of the year? 73, Rick, KV9U John Becker, WØJAB wrote: Roger your beating a very dead horse. In just 41 days all the wide robots will have to be in their own sub-band. I sure hope this anti-wide stuff will stop soon. John, W0JAB Keep in mind that the enforcement resources of the FCC are pretty limited, and Pactor 3 is not all that ubiquitous. Just because the FCC doesn't put a stop to things like Pactor 3 being too wide, Pactor robot stations transmitting without listening, etc. does not mean that these things are legal. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: I Apologize
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: Roger your beating a very dead horse. In just 41 days all the wide robots will have to be in their own sub-band. I sure hope this anti-wide stuff will stop soon. John, W0JAB You mean you hope that the anti-Pactor stuff will stop. But you have completely missed my point. Which was, to make it clearer, that merely because a given bad practice (e.g. Pactor stations transmitting without listening as a matter of policy) isn't immediately stamped out by the FCC, such inaction does not mean that the practice is legal. That is my point. Hope this helped you, John. ;-)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: I Apologize
Points taken. What about the times I and other have been up around 075 to 077 with KB to KB on one of the Pactor modes and without seeing any text someone starts calling CQ with one of the sound card modes? I did post a message about it a while back but I feel that once anyone saw the word pactor it was forgotten. It really sound like you are saying 2 wrongs make a right. The fact is (and I have said this a number of times) that the robot stations DO LISTEN, but just for other pactor stations. At 08:40 PM 11/20/2007, you wrote: You mean you hope that the anti-Pactor stuff will stop. But you have completely missed my point. Which was, to make it clearer, that merely because a given bad practice (e.g. Pactor stations transmitting without listening as a matter of policy) isn't immediately stamped out by the FCC, such inaction does not mean that the practice is legal. That is my point. Hope this helped you, John. ;-)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: I Apologize
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: Points taken. What about the times I and other have been up around 075 to 077 with KB to KB on one of the Pactor modes and without seeing any text someone starts calling CQ with one of the sound card modes? There is a difference. 1. In the last 5 years of operating I have not heard one single Pactor K-to-K QSO, so what you are describing is extremely rare. I know that it is; that is why I just gave away my SCS PTC-II modem. No one to talk to with it. Except for a very few, Pactor is not a QSO mode. It is less common on the digital modes as a QSO mode than old A.M. is on the phone bands. 2. What you are describing is not policy. In other words, while the Pactor people admit and are proud of the fact that they refuse to listen before transmitting, other amateurs do not deliberately do this as policy. Oh, the occasional careless Op may do it by accident, but not as policy. The Pactor people have made a deliberate decision to transmit without listening, other hams be darned. There is simply no excuse for deliberately deciding, as a matter of policy, not to listen before transmitting. What if there is emergency traffic on the frequency, for example. Again, I hope this helps you, John. de Roger W6VZV
[digitalradio] Fw: ARRL D-STAR Web Survey Ongoing Now
- Forwarded Message From: Patrick Ryan KC6VVT [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:56:12 PM Subject: [illinoisdigitalham] ARRLWeb Survey ongoing now ARRLWeb Survey ongoing now side bar at www.arrl.org Do you have any active D-STAR systems in your area? Yes, several Yes, one No, but one is going on the air soon No, but we're in the planning stages No I've never heard of it. What is D-STAR? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-STAR results at: http://www.arrl.org/survey.php3 -- R. Patrick Ryan ARS: KC6VVT [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ
[digitalradio] ARRl Web Survery Results - Will a Digital Mode Overshadow CW, SSB or FM?
ARRLWeb Survey Results Poll date: October 13, 2006 Do you foresee the development of a digital mode within the next 10 years that will become so popular among hams it will overshadow CW, SSB or FM? Yes 48.9 % (2104) No 51.1 % (2198) Total votes: 4302 Note: You may vote only once. This ARRLWeb poll is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those ARRLWeb users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of the amateur community as a whole, or of the ARRL. Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ
