[digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Rud Merriam K5RUD Bluntly, you are ignoring the reality of trends in computer hardware. Hi Rud, There's no problem with the computer hardware, simply a problem with the commercially made interface between the computer and the radio. Any interface that deletes part of the transmit waveform on every transmission, and possibly deletes part of every received transmission, is a faulty design. Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Well stated, Bonnie. 73 de Stro KO4FR - Original Message - From: expeditionradio To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 12:17 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes IMHO, it is ridiculous to suggest that the protocol implementers should change the protocol to add overhead to accept cheapo bogus hardware. In many cases, the excellent worldwide standards have already been set, and the proliferation of sub-standard interfaces on the market is not going to affect the protocols, like the tail wagging the dog. There simply is no need to purchase a poorly designed bogus interface that depends on VOX, that chops off the beginning of each transmission or received signal. It is up to operators themselves to select a proper interface that conforms to the standard of digital protocols they intend to operate. The trend is for more ARQ protocols being used in ham radio. There are many excellent interfaces on the market that function properly. Why bother with the junk ones? It is also very easy to homebrew an interface. I've built several of them in a few hours of work, and put the plans for them on the web: http://hflink.com/interface/ Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA Rud Merriam k5rud wrote: Or the protocol implementers need to recognize the need to generate a tone to trigger the VOX. This would be analogous to the delay they provide for transmitter keying. __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3390 (20080826) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Bonnie, Rud Merriam k5rud wrote: Or the protocol implementers need to recognize the need to generate a tone to trigger the VOX. This would be analogous to the delay they provide for transmitter keying. Bonnie wrote: IMHO, it is ridiculous to suggest that the protocol implementers should change the protocol to add overhead to accept cheapo bogus hardware. In many cases, the excellent worldwide standards have already been set, and the proliferation of sub-standard interfaces on the market is not going to affect the protocols, like the tail wagging the dog. The ARQ specification by K9PS clearly states that all SOH in a preamble are ignored except one, so in order to make it possible to use MFSK16, with its rather high latency, with ARQ for NBEMS, we simply added 10 SOH to each transmission to compensate for the latency. This also made it possible to use MT63-2000 with ARQ. It works, and the additional overhead is so small that the slowdown in throughput is insignificant, especially since MFSK16 is so good, that whole blocks that might ordinarily have to be repeated using a lesser mode are not, which is much more significant to throughput than the time it takes to send 10 SOH characters. The K9PS specification has not been deviated from and the NBEMS system also works perfectly with either SignaLink digital VOX or SSB rig VOX. You should clairfy your overly broad statement that the SignaLink will not work with ARQ modes, to say it may not work with traditional PC ALE or AMTOR, but is fine to use with other soundcard modes, so you do not continue to mislead others. I think you owe Rud Merriam a personal apology for calling him ridiculous. It is YOU who are in the wrong, not he... 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Hello Rud, In asynchronous ARQ mode, in all cases, it is necessary to bit synchronize the receiver as the receiver does not know when teh next frame is going to be transmitted (reversely, in synchronous ARQ mode this is not necessary as the RX knows exactly the time of the reception of the next frame). For bit synchronization, it is necessary to send previously a sequence of symbols (which solves this problem of VOX even if it was not done for this...). For example, here is an extract of the ARQ FAE protocol. 28 symbols to synchronize can seem much but the S/N can be very low (down to -13 dB). As you see in ARQ FAE in ALE400, there is a delay of 0.56 second before transmitting any useful symbol. 73 Patrick ARQ FAE synchronization sequence In 125 bauds Before each FAE frame, it is transmitted 28 symbols, alternately on the lowest frequency and then on the highest frequency, so for a duration of about 0.224 second (28/125 s). This is aimed: * to cover the necessary delay to switch the transceiver (128 ms maximum, with a standard delay of about 40 ms), * to permit the symbol synchronization just before the frame reception (96 ms). - In 50 bauds It is also transmitted 28 symbols, alternately on the lowest frequency and then on the highest frequency, so for a duration of about 0.56 second (28/50 s). This is also aimed to: * to cover the necessary delay to switch the transceiver (128 ms maximum, with a standard delay of about 40 ms), * to permit the symbol synchronization just before the frame reception (432 ms). - Original Message - From: Rud Merriam [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 12:25 AM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes Or the protocol implementers need to recognize the need to generate a tone to trigger the VOX. This would be analogous to the delay they provide for transmitter keying. - 73 - Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of expeditionradio Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:26 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes Sholto Fisher wrote: I can't believe it makes any significant difference at least for ALE400 FAE. Hi Sholto, Whether you believe it or not, that's up to you. But the math doesn't lie, and neither does the oscilloscope. IMHO, any interface that chops off part of your transmission, for whatever mode, should be returned to the manufacturer for refund :) 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
I agree with Skip on this Bonnie, the Signalink interface is a very good digital interface and to write it off as a P.O.S is misinformed, disingenuous, just plain wrong and potentially damaging to a small US ham radio oriented company who manufacture quality products. Just to reiterate I have use it successfully with ALE/141, ALE400, Packet (HF 300 and VHF 1200 baud) and PAX without noticing any problems. Of course I use MultiPSK so your results may not be as good if using other software. 73, Sholto KE7HPV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Just to add my two cents. I do have a SL-1 that is used only for MT63 and HELL. Having said that I have found no problem with it. Of course they are not ARQ modes. I do use ARQ modes a lot but also have the hardware to operate it. John, W0JAB
[digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Sholto Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Bonnie, Does it really make that much difference? 73 Sholto. Yes, it really does make a difference :) Please see my previous explanation where I detailed the exact number of symbols that are deleted by Signalink at the beginning of every time you transmit. Then, there are the receive signals that may be deleted by Signalink due to PTT release delay. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Bonnie what do you suggest using with out spend a whole lot i was also looking at the rigblaster plug and play usb MATTHEW A. GREGORY KC2PUA - Original Message From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:47:27 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Sholto Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Bonnie, Does it really make that much difference? 73 Sholto. Yes, it really does make a difference :) Please see my previous explanation where I detailed the exact number of symbols that are deleted by Signalink at the beginning of every time you transmit. Then, there are the receive signals that may be deleted by Signalink due to PTT release delay. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Sorry to harp on about this but ALE400 has a baud rate of 50 (20ms length) and the VOX PTT is 28ms plus allowing for say a 12ms delay from a modern rig that is only 40ms total delay on transmit, just 2 symbols. From MultiPSK's help file: In ALE400 it is transmitted 28 symbols, alternately on the lowest frequency and then on the highest frequency, so for a duration of about 0.56 second (28/50 s). This is aimed to permit the symbol synchronization just before the frame reception. I'm no expert (so forgive me if I am way off base on this) but even allowing for 2 missed symbols that still leaves 26 for synchronization before receiving the FAE frame. I can't believe it makes any significant difference at least for ALE400 FAE. 73 Sholto. expeditionradio wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Sholto Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Bonnie, Does it really make that much difference? 73 Sholto. Yes, it really does make a difference :) Please see my previous explanation where I detailed the exact number of symbols that are deleted by Signalink at the beginning of every time you transmit. Then, there are the receive signals that may be deleted by Signalink due to PTT release delay. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
matt gregory wrote: Bonnie what do you suggest using with out spend a whole lot i was also looking at the rigblaster plug and play usb MATTHEW A. GREGORY KC2PUA Hi Matthew, The Rigblaster Plug N Play is an excellent choice. Almost any of the interfaces that include PTT using hardware RTS will do fine for ARQ modes. Beware of interfaces that say they don't need any configuration or use VOX. Also, beware of the ones with cheap miniature soundcards inside them. For fast digital modes a soundcard with native 48kHz sampling is best. Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Sholto Fisher wrote: I can't believe it makes any significant difference at least for ALE400 FAE. Hi Sholto, Whether you believe it or not, that's up to you. But the math doesn't lie, and neither does the oscilloscope. IMHO, any interface that chops off part of your transmission, for whatever mode, should be returned to the manufacturer for refund :) 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Hello to all, About slow asynchronous ARQ modes as ARQ FAE, Pax, Pax2 and even Packet there is no much problem to have several dozens of ms in delay. This because due to sound card buffers, the obligation to work even with slow computers, and due to slow modulation, it is introduced big margins (several hundreds of ms or even seconds depending of the mode or the number of repeaters used in Pax, for example). So this delay is not critical. And as Rick said, it is a positive point about asynchronous ARQ modes which are flexible. Moreover they are economical as they transmitted only when requested and not everytime (transmitting padding characters). However, for quick ARQ modes (as RFSM2400 or 110A) it is certainly an other story, as the margins might be very low...and, moreover, I'm not very sure that the VOX delay is really constant... It might depend on a filter associated with a threshold. The delay with which the threshold will be switched will depend on the sound level at the input. The best is the direct switching from the serial port, then the Cat system and afterwards the VOX system. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:26 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes Sholto Fisher wrote: I can't believe it makes any significant difference at least for ALE400 FAE. Hi Sholto, Whether you believe it or not, that's up to you. But the math doesn't lie, and neither does the oscilloscope. IMHO, any interface that chops off part of your transmission, for whatever mode, should be returned to the manufacturer for refund :) 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Or the protocol implementers need to recognize the need to generate a tone to trigger the VOX. This would be analogous to the delay they provide for transmitter keying. - 73 - Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of expeditionradio Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:26 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes Sholto Fisher wrote: I can't believe it makes any significant difference at least for ALE400 FAE. Hi Sholto, Whether you believe it or not, that's up to you. But the math doesn't lie, and neither does the oscilloscope. IMHO, any interface that chops off part of your transmission, for whatever mode, should be returned to the manufacturer for refund :) 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Recollection is that the SignalLink has its own internal VOX circuit, so can be independent of the VOX settings of the rig - except if the user makes the mistake of turning VOX on in their rig, and the rig has a longer delay time than the SignalLink does - which is likely. Either way, I cringed when I heard that the SignalLink uses VOX, with no direct control option. But hey, I'm one of those that has VHF/UHF radios and TNC's that are fast enough to reliably work 1200 baud packet with 40 ms of TXDelay. 73, Bob, KD7NM Operating in the land where one can send a ack packet while other's slow radios are still locking their PLL's up... -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Lindecker Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:40 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes Hello to all, About slow asynchronous ARQ modes as ARQ FAE, Pax, Pax2 and even Packet there is no much problem to have several dozens of ms in delay. This because due to sound card buffers, the obligation to work even with slow computers, and due to slow modulation, it is introduced big margins (several hundreds of ms or even seconds depending of the mode or the number of repeaters used in Pax, for example). So this delay is not critical. And as Rick said, it is a positive point about asynchronous ARQ modes which are flexible. Moreover they are economical as they transmitted only when requested and not everytime (transmitting padding characters). However, for quick ARQ modes (as RFSM2400 or 110A) it is certainly an other story, as the margins might be very low...and, moreover, I'm not very sure that the VOX delay is really constant... It might depend on a filter associated with a threshold. The delay with which the threshold will be switched will depend on the sound level at the input. The best is the direct switching from the serial port, then the Cat system and afterwards the VOX system. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:26 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes Sholto Fisher wrote: I can't believe it makes any significant difference at least for ALE400 FAE. Hi Sholto, Whether you believe it or not, that's up to you. But the math doesn't lie, and neither does the oscilloscope. IMHO, any interface that chops off part of your transmission, for whatever mode, should be returned to the manufacturer for refund :) 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links
[digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
IMHO, it is ridiculous to suggest that the protocol implementers should change the protocol to add overhead to accept cheapo bogus hardware. In many cases, the excellent worldwide standards have already been set, and the proliferation of sub-standard interfaces on the market is not going to affect the protocols, like the tail wagging the dog. There simply is no need to purchase a poorly designed bogus interface that depends on VOX, that chops off the beginning of each transmission or received signal. It is up to operators themselves to select a proper interface that conforms to the standard of digital protocols they intend to operate. The trend is for more ARQ protocols being used in ham radio. There are many excellent interfaces on the market that function properly. Why bother with the junk ones? It is also very easy to homebrew an interface. I've built several of them in a few hours of work, and put the plans for them on the web: http://hflink.com/interface/ Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA Rud Merriam k5rud wrote: Or the protocol implementers need to recognize the need to generate a tone to trigger the VOX. This would be analogous to the delay they provide for transmitter keying.
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Bluntly, you are ignoring the reality of trends in computer hardware. Further, my suggestion does not impact any protocol. The protocols require no changes. What could be changed is the way a protocol __implementation__ signals that it ready to transmit. A simple check box on the screen that defines the radio interface and sending an audio tone, possibly sub audible, is all that needs to change. - 73 - Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net -Original Message- From: expeditionradio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 11:17 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes IMHO, it is ridiculous to suggest that the protocol implementers should change the protocol to add overhead to accept cheapo bogus hardware. In many cases, the excellent worldwide standards have already been set, and the proliferation of sub-standard interfaces on the market is not going to affect the protocols, like the tail wagging the dog. There simply is no need to purchase a poorly designed bogus interface that depends on VOX, that chops off the beginning of each transmission or received signal. It is up to operators themselves to select a proper interface that conforms to the standard of digital protocols they intend to operate. The trend is for more ARQ protocols being used in ham radio. There are many excellent interfaces on the market that function properly. Why bother with the junk ones? It is also very easy to homebrew an interface. I've built several of them in a few hours of work, and put the plans for them on the web: http://hflink.com/interface/ Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA Rud Merriam k5rud wrote: Or the protocol implementers need to recognize the need to generate a tone to trigger the VOX. This would be analogous to the delay they provide for transmitter keying. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links
