Re: [digitalradio] . . . the other digital mode
Having learned CW in 1959 and computer programming in 1968, I take your point. In the broadest sense, CW is binary. It is true most digital modes have fairly precise timing, whereas CW, especially sent with a straight key, can be quite the opposite. I have been doing my best to stay away from use of PC programs that generate CW, as well as those that can decode it. I realize that's a loosing battle. DXers and Contesters are moving to these programs for obvious reasons. In everyday Ham language, usually digital modes mean a computer program is generating the transmitted information and another one is decoding it on the other end. So I would exclude traditional CW from my personal list of digital modes for that reason. But in fact, since computer generated and decoded CW is now possible, it really should be included in the list of digital modes, shouldn't it? Jim - K6XZ - Original Message - From: Siegfried Jackstien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 2:45 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] . . . the other digital mode cw is digital on off on off or dit dah dit dah . sound there sound away ... so where is the analog compound??? - Original Message - From: S.J. To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 5:15 PM Subject: [digitalradio] . . . the other digital mode CW is an Analog Mode . . . 73, Sherm KB9Q .
Re: [digitalradio] Really beating the AGC issue with PSK ?
This note is for users of the TS-2000 who could use the ability to reduce Rx bandwidth to as narrow as 50 hz. Andy K3UK asks about mitigating the problem of a strong signal near your weaker target signal. Phil points out IF DSP is better than AF DSP, but a technique described by Hans N0AN will help quite a lot. The following is all by N0AN from notes on another reflector. The DSP filtering in the TS-2K is quite good. One trick that a lot of people don't seem to use or know about is for superb reception of psk31/rtty etc. Run the radio in split mode. Here is how to do it. 0. Select your favorite psk31 freq on the A vfo (left side, receive, USB) 1. Select SPLIT vfo's. 2. Make A your left VFO (arrow points to left by the A) 3. Make B your right VFO (arrow points to the right by the B) 4. Hit the A=B button to put both vfos on the same freq and mode. 5. Select CW for your receive mode (hit cw button) 6. Set your bandwidth control to 2000 hz for now 7. Set your shift control to 900 hz for now 7a. Turn XIT on and set it to -800 hz (this puts your transmit and rx on the same freq, even though you have different modes selected (cw on rx, usb on tx) 8. Press and hold the TF-set button, and while holding it, hit the SSB button..this sets the transmit vfo in the SSB mode. This may sound like a lot, but it is actually quite simple, and you only have to do it once! You are now set to receive on VFO A (left side) in CW and to transmit on VFO B(right side) in SSB. Due to setting XIT to -800 Hz, they are on EXACTLY the same frequency. Now...as long as you use the receive window of your software (like MixW) to change frequency by selecting different signals on the waterfall/spectrum by clicking with the mouse, you don't have to do any retuning! You have approximately 1500 hertz of bandwidth to play with, without touching any knobs. So...what does this get you? You can now use the filter width and shift controls (lower left side of front panel) to allow you to receive in any bandwidth from 2000 hz down to 50 hz!!! You have virtual privacy when you narrow the receive filter down to 50hz, believe me. I set my shift control to about 900 hz, because I want to be able to copy psk31 signals down to about 350 hz and up to about 1500 hz. If you choose 900 hz for your shift, you can still copy most of the band. You can click anywhere in the waterfall/spectrum on a signal and instantly begin copying, no knobs, no messing around, but perfect reception. Then it is a simple matter to start closing down the rx bandwidth with the left knob. Reduce it one click and you drop from 2000 hz wide to 1000 hzall the way down to 50 hz if you want. Now...as you start reducing the bandwidth significantly with the left knob, you will need to adjust your shift to correspond to what the station you are listening to tone freq's actually are...in other words, if you reduce things from 2000 to 600 hz, and you were listening at 1100 hz, you will lose the rx signal until you adjust the shift knob to a bit closer to 600 hz (assuming the station you are listening to is on 600 hz in the waterfall/spectrum display.) While all this might sound overwhelming, it is really quite simple and one gets good at it. - Addendum from followup notes by N0AN Simply put, two things control how you receive a signal with this setup: a. The receive bandwidth (left knob) b. The receive shift (right knob) The ideal is to set the receive shift to the center freq of the signal you are listening to, BUT, the wider you have you bandwidth set, the more tolerant things are to having your shift off. When things are wide open at 2000 hz, you can set the shift to 900 hz and forget it. When you start to tighten down the bandwidth, you need to move the shift center freq (right knob) to more closely agree with where you are actually listening. = If you find it necessary to change the radio receiver VFO frequency, just do this after tuning the radio to a new frequency: Hit A=B button Press and hold TF-Set Hit the SSB button (while holding the TF-Set button...let up on the TF-Set after you have tapped the SSB button. You have now done the following: Set the A and B VFOs to the same freq and mode Reset the B vfo to USB (it got changed to CW when you hit the A=B button) I find I don't have to do this very often as 99% of the psk31 activity is on a specific band of frequencies centered at about 14.070 or 14.071 (cw receive). At 50 hz wide, that couple of kilohertz is a LOT of bandwidth, so you don't have to retune very often...you just use the waterfall/spectrum display and your mouse click for tuning. I've used this trick successfully with both a TS-870 and the new TS-2000, and it works beautifully. QRM on psk31 is a thing of the past with the outstanding dsp filtering in this radio. Once one learns the method for setting things up that I described above, it is psk31 heaven! At 50 hz bandwidth (and your
Re: [digitalradio] The best of all features
This is a terrific review. You identify what's important to you so we can understand your thinking, and you give your reasons for preferring one program over another. Very useful for all of us. Jim - K6XZ - Original Message - From: Ed Hekman To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 1:11 AM Subject: [digitalradio] The best of all features It looks like the thread on MixW has run the course but I wanted to make a few comments about what I felt were the best features of each of the programs that I have used. I started with Digipan and stayed with it for over 5 years because it was simple to setup and use. The capability to receive in panoramic mode and carry on a QSO at the same time has become very important to my style of operating. I grew very dependent on the capability to use the F1 key to bring up the qrz.com page for the call sign entered in the log. Unfortunately I experienced some crashes with the last version that were too frequent to be ignored. That and the lack of other modes motivated me to try some of the other programs. The programs I have tried so far include HRD/DM780, MixW, fldigi and MultiPSK. MixW was the next program I used but never as much as Digipan. The absence of a panoramic decoder prevented me from adopting as the only or primary program. It is nice that I was able to configure the functions keys to be the same that I had become accustomed to with Digipan. And one uniquie feature of MixW that I have used many times is the capability to select many transmissions to monitor - each in separate windows - and to be able to select a different transmissionj mode for each of those windows. It is not as straightforward as it could be but it can be done. DM780 was the next program that I spent some getting to know. Limited computer power did cause some problems when DM780 was running concurrently with my weather station program, Weather Display. Weather Display would crash very consistently with significant activity in DM780 and even more quickly when iexplorer was running. But now with a much more capable PC I have been exploring other very nice features of DM780. The capability to push a button and have the radio shift frequency to put the signal of interest in the center of the narrow passband is extremely valuable for operating in crowded band conditions. The capability to carry on a QSO with the screen operating in panoramic mode is very important to me. The automation posting of spots to PSK Reporter and the automatic uploading of QSOs to eQSL and LOTW is very nice. The one drawback for me is the inability to assign operations to the function keys to match the configurations used with Digipan, Mixw, fldigi and MultiPSK. I dabbled with MultiPSK over the years but began using in daily last year when I discovered that it had the capability to capture call signs spotted. With a utility from Sholto, KE7HPV, this is being used to automatically post call signs dexcoded to the web page, www.hamspots.net. I also did some experiments with the ALE400 mode with good success. fldigi comes the closest to replicating the simplicity and ease of use of Digipan but it adds many other modes and features. The ability to open the panoramic window and the logbook separately from the main QSO screen is very nice since I like to be able to decode other transmissions while I am in a QSO. The radio interface is a nice bonus that was setup quite easily for a couple radios. The capability to automatically post to PSK Reporter is a nice feature but I haven't been successful with that yet. The capability to integrate with DXKeeper with a 3rd party bridge is also nice but I haven't succeded with that yet either. And I think the flarq program greatly expands the usefulness to methods of operating beyond the normal one on one QSO. fldigi has been the primary program here since last fall until I acquired a more powerful computer that could more easily handle DM780. One very nice feature of DM780 that I use frequently is the capability to hit a button and have the radio and the program switch the radio frequency and the audio frequency to put the desired signal in the center of the radios narrow band filter. That is a brief synopsys of the highlights of each of the programs for me. Thing to look forward to: Panoramic screen decoding over bandwidths of 24 KHz up to 192 KHz. More SOMR (single operator, multiple radio) capability. Better integration with logging packages across the various programs to a common database on the network. It is quite late here now so anything I say from now on will probably be nonsense so I will terminate this for now and hope that others will offer their highlights and lowlights of the currently available software and their wishlists for the next generation of radio software. Thanks, Ed WB6YTE .
Re: [digitalradio] Has anyone tried the ASuS EEE pc 901?
That is a good price. I wonder if it has enough computer power for some of the powerful digital mode programs. That approach gives you the most versatility, but I'm going a different way for PSK field work -- the NUE-PSK digital modem. It has it's own LCD screen and processor with software for PSK and a few other modes in the firmware. It draws 60 ma without backlight, 80 ma with, so it will give many hours of QRP PSK using a small battery for it and my 817. The curent sale price is $150 kit, $200 assembled from http://www.nue-psk.com/. But a real PC like a Netbook would allow a lot of other portable activity, but without quite as much time betore the batteries run down. Jim - K6XZ - Original Message - From: jeffnjr484 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 8:24 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Has anyone tried the ASuS EEE pc 901? Hello, Has anyone used the ASUS laptop for psk31 or any digital modes im looking at it for some portable ops http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001BYD178/ref=noref?ie=UTF8s=pc It looks like a neat computer and the price is outstanding just wanted to know if anyone has tried it jeff kd4qit .
Re: [digitalradio] Mystery signal on 75M
Is DRM that wide? - Original Message - From: Cortland Richmond To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 5:48 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Mystery signal on 75M There's some European DRM broadcasting in that range. Cortland [Original Message] From: jhaynesatalumni jhhay...@earthlink.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: 1/11/2010 8:27:07 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Mystery signal on 75M I was listening on the top end of 75M this afternoon about 4PM CST and heard a strange wideband signal, sounded a little bit like rushing wind. Brought up a digital waterfall and found that it extended from 3990.15 to 3997.85. The waterfall display was rather blotchy, suggesting some internal structure, tho I'm not clear on how many carriers might be present or what their spacing is. I was beginning to suspect the neighbor's cable TV box which has put noise on some other frequencies, but then the signal went away about 5PM CST. I've heard the signal before, but didn't note the times and spectrum. This is in NW Arkansas.
Re: [digitalradio] Mystery signal on 75M
OK, I was thinking of the narrow bandwidth WinDRm and even better FDMDV that we used until it was discovered we were using a proprietary codec. DRM for HF broadcast really is pretty wide, comparatively. Thanks for the links. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Cortland Richmond To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 7:55 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Mystery signal on 75M Sure is. See the Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Radio_Mondiale Also see the complaints! http://www.mail-archive.com/hard-core...@hard-core-dx.com/msg06085.html FWIW, we in the US still have some AM HD Radio stations on IBOC wiping out reception of adjacent frequencies. http://www.radioworld.com/article/8714 Cortland KA5S - Original Message - From: J. Moen To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: 1/11/2010 10:41:14 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Mystery signal on 75M Is DRM that wide? - Original Message - From: Cortland Richmond To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 5:48 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Mystery signal on 75M There's some European DRM broadcasting in that range. Cortland [Original Message] From: jhaynesatalumni jhhay...@earthlink.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: 1/11/2010 8:27:07 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Mystery signal on 75M I was listening on the top end of 75M this afternoon about 4PM CST and heard a strange wideband signal, sounded a little bit like rushing wind. Brought up a digital waterfall and found that it extended from 3990.15 to 3997.85. The waterfall display was rather blotchy, suggesting some internal structure, tho I'm not clear on how many carriers might be present or what their spacing is. I was beginning to suspect the neighbor's cable TV box which has put noise on some other frequencies, but then the signal went away about 5PM CST. I've heard the signal before, but didn't note the times and spectrum. This is in NW Arkansas.
Re: [digitalradio] New kenwood radio (video clip)
From Kenwood's booth at the 2009 Tokyo Ham Fair, posted on YouTube in August, 2009. It shows a mock-up of Kenwood's next mid-range (US $2,000) 160-6 meter HF radio that targets most of the Elecraft K3's specs. A real one should be at Dayton 2010. One assumes it will be as easy at digital modes as Kenwood's TS-2000 is. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Andy obrien To: digitalradio Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 9:42 AM Subject: [digitalradio] New kenwood radio (video clip) -- Forwarded message -- From: Jason kf6q...@yahoo.com Date: Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 12:32 PM Subject: [KenwoodTS-2000] New kenwood radio enjoy To: kenwoodts-2...@yahoogroups.com kenwoodts-2...@yahoogroups.com http://dx-hamspirit.com/2009/09/new-kenwood-hf-transceiver-short-clip-from-tokyo-ham-fair-2009/ Copy and paste link into address bar if you can't click on it
Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA?
While frequency-hopping was first introduced in a patent filed by Nikola Tesla in 19000, I've always been fascinated by the role of Austrian actress Hedy Lamarr in the development of spread-spectrum. According to Wikipedia, Lamarr had learned about the problem at defense meetings she had attended with her former husband Friedrich Mandl, who was an Austrian arms manufacturer. The Antheil-Lamarr version of frequency hopping used a piano-roll to change among 88 frequencies, and was intended to make radio-guided torpedoes harder for enemies to detect or to jam. The patent came to light during patent searches in the 1950s when ITT Corporation and other private firms began to develop Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), a civilian form of spread spectrum. The Antheil-Lamarr patent was granted in 1942. http://www.women-inventors.com/Hedy-Lammar.asp Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Andy obrien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 5:23 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA? The description says it uses spread-spectrun On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Dave Ackrill dave.g0...@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
Sticking with the USA/FCC-centric discussion, I agree with Alan KM4BA, when he wrote: If the radio stays on a single frequency in SSB mode the new mode does not meet the definition of spread spectrum that is restricted in HF. Many advanced digital protocols manage the spectrum in the SSB bandwidth to achieve performance. But since the implied carrier frequency is not moving, it's not spread spectrum in the classic sense. It does not matter what the ROS authors write to describe it. It isn't illegal in the USA because they call it SS, all that matters is how a competent engineer would technically describe it. FCC rules do not say it is illegal to use a mode that describes itself as SS on HF, they say that SS is not allowed on the HF bands. And saying ROS is SS doesn't make that true. I also agree with Andy G4JNT's point that Amateurs should be allowed to experiment. Historically in the USA, the FCC has indeed allowed experimentation, then come along with appropriate rules once the new technology is better understood. I think all this legal discussion is trying to make, as they say, a mountain out of a molehill. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Alan Barrow To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 7:03 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA? Andy wrote: I find it rather amazing that 99% of the posts on ROS, and any other new data mode, are related to its legality in the US. How did you end up with such restrictive amateur licensing practices that experimentation with any new ideas is almost regulated away? Or worries the users that they make be flung in prison for transmitting them :-) Unfortunately the same way some of my brit friends found themselves in catch 22 regarding bio-fuels was not illegal. But was not taxed, so could not be used without paying tax. But there was no agency to pay tax to. IE: Bureaucracy! Big fines, court appearances, no law broken, yet all tangled up. I'll just say the US is not the only country with agencies restricting things based on red-tape rather than any legit reason. Even the FCC can be worked with if you go to the trouble to find the entry point, I've seen it done before more than once. But that's harder than having arm-chair lawyers make their declaration It's illegal. :-) My read: If the radio stays on a single frequency in SSB mode the new mode does not meet the definition of spread spectrum that is restricted in HF. Many advanced digital protocols manage the spectrum in the SSB bandwidth to achieve performance. But since the implied carrier frequency is not moving, it's not spread spectrum in the classic sense. You might be able to argue if it's legal for use in certain band segments, etc. You could talk about effective symbol rate, though many modes are working around that as well. Have fun, Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] ROS - make it legal in USA
What is the FCC definition of spread spectrum, and where can it be located on the internet? Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: John B. Stephensen To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 7:58 PM Subject: [digitalradio] ROS - make it legal in USA ROS is MFSK16 with frequency hopping so it is SS per the FCC definition as the bandwidth is expanded. However, the FCC never fined anyone during the period when Hellscreiber was used illegally so I doubt that they would do so with ROS. What ROS users should do is email their ARRL representative and have them petition the FCC to change the rules. One solution is to eliminate the emission designators and change the RTTY/data segment of each HF band to 0-500 Hz wide emissions and the phone/image of each HF band to 0-8 kHz wide emissions with 0-20 kHz above 29 MHz. 73, John KD6OZH
Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA? Letter to FCC
Excellent idea to ask FCC for an opinion. Dave K3DCW referred to Part 97, but the section he quoted really only describes emission mode designation codes for SS, and does not technically describe how FCC defines SS. It's almost as if Part 97 assumes the definition is so well known that it's not necessary to define it. Problem is, for many years, SS really did operate over a very large bandwidth, much wider than 2.5 kHz. It was thought use of that form of SS had the potential of interfering with many narrowband users. That was not necessarly true, of course. But now we are seeing modes that are much narrower band. I would be good if FCC responds to your letter with their technical description of SS. It's possible they will say that if you modulate tones within 500 hz using frequency hopping SS techniques, then that is SS. It's also possible they would agree that a transmission less than 2.5 kHz wide does not qualify as SS, even though the modulation technique use SS methods. But right now, I think that since Part 97 does not appear to define what SS is, it is not possible to definitively say whether ROS is legal or not legal in FCC jurisdictions. Asking FCC for an opinion is a great idea. Jim - K6JM This is from Dave K3DCW's comment: The closest you get to a true definition in Part 97 is in section 97.3 Definitions, Para C, line 8: (8) SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. - Original Message - From: Andy obrien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 7:41 AM Subject: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA? Letter to FCC I have compiled a letter to Laura Smith Esq, at the FCC, with details of this mode. I will let you all know when I receive a reply. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams
Bonnie's note describes the US/FCC regulations issues regarding ROS and SS really well. It's the best description of the US problem I've seen on this reflector. After reading what seems like hundreds of notes, I now agree that if ROS uses FHSS techniques, as its author says it does (and none of us has seen the code), then even though it 1) uses less 3 kHz bandwidth, 2) does not appear to do any more harm than a SSB signal and 3) is similar to other FSK modes, it is not legal in FCC jurisdictions. As Bonnie points out, ROS doesn't hop the VFO frequency, but within the 2.5 bandwidth, it technically is SS. This would be true if ROS used 300 Hz bandwidth instead of 2.5 kHz, but hopped about using FHSS within the 300 Hz bandwidth. So I have to agree the FCC regs are not well written in this case. Regarding the corollary issue of US/FCC regulations focused on content instead of bandwidth, I'm not competent to comment. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: expeditionradio To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 5:09 PM Subject: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams Given the fact that ROS Modem has been advertised as Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS), it may be quite difficult for USA amateur radio operators to obtain a positive interpretation of rules by FCC to allow use of ROS on HF without some type of experimental license or waiver. Otherwise, hams will need an amendment of FCC rules to use it in USA. Sadly, this may lead to the early death of ROS among USA hams. If ROS Modem had simply provided the technical specifications of the emission, and not called it Spread Spectrum, there would have been a chance for it to be easily adopted by Ham Radio operators in USA. But, the ROS modem designer is rightfully proud of the design, and he lives in a country that is not bound by FCC rules, and probably had little or no knowledge of how his advertising might prevent thousands of hams from using it in USA. But, as they say, You cannot un-ring a bell, once it has been rung. ROS signal can be viewed as a type of FSK, similar to various other types of n-ary-FSK presently in widespread use by USA hams. The specific algorithms for signal process and format could simply have been documented without calling it Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS). Since it is a narrowband signal (using the FCC and ITU definitions of narrowband emission = less than 3kHz) within the width of an SSB passband, it does not fit the traditional FHSS description as a conventional wideband technique. It probably would not have been viewed as FHSS under the spirit and intention of the FCC rules. It doesn't hop the VFO frequency. It simply FSKs according to a programmable algorithm, and it meets the infamous 1kHz shift 300 baud rule. http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html#307f3 This is a typical example of how outdated the present FCC rules are, keeping USA hams in TECHNOLOGY JAIL while the rest of the world's hams move forward with digital technology. It should come as no surprise that most of the new ham radio digital modes are not being developed in USA! But, for a moment, let's put aside the issue of current FCC prohibition against Spread Spectrum and/or Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum, and how it relates to ROS mode. Let's look at bandwidth. There is the other issue of bandwidth that some misguided USA hams have brought up here and in other forums related to ROS. Some superstitious hams seem to erroneously think that there is an over-reaching bandwidth limit in the FCC rules for data/text modes on HF that might indicate what part of the ham band to operate it or not operate it. FACT: There is currently no finite bandwidth limit on HF data/text emission in USA ham bands, except for the sub-band and band edges. FACT: FCC data/text HF rules are still mainly based on content of the emission, not bandwidth. New SDR radios have the potential to transmit and receive wider bandwidths than the traditional 3kHz SSB passband. We will see a lot more development in this area of technology in the future, and a lot more gray areas of 20th century FCC rules that inhibit innovation and progress for ham radio HF digital technology in the 21st century. Several years ago, there was a proposal to FCC to provide regulation by bandwidth rather than content. However, it failed to be adopted, and ARRL's petition to limit bandwidth was withdrawn http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/04/27/101/?nc=1 Thus, USA hams will continue to be in Technology Jail without access to many new modes in the foreseeable future :( Best Wishes, Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)
And think real hard next time before calling the FCC. Ham radio was the net loser in this episode. We are already viewed as squabbling children at the FCC, and this type of episode just reinforces that view of amateur radio. AMEN. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Alan Barrow To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 8:06 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages) pd4u_dares wrote: ... considering legal action ... has an apparent plan ... may have understandably frustrated Jose I really have mixed feelings about how this all played out as well. While I don't agree with ban lists, I can see where the software author could get very frustrated at what could be perceived as an attempt to get a new mode banned. My observation is that when an arms length ham goes to the ARRL/FCC with an is this legal it nearly always results in a at first glance we do not think so. Historically, this is nearly always done by people opposed to the new mode, and looking to see it banned. Having seen this happen more than once, and having detailed information on two of those cases, it's the wrong way to handle such a query, even if done in good faith. And like most times this occurs, with more detail, and maybe a bit more objective presentation (like making it clear it's ssb bandwidth with an audio sample), the FCC Input is reversed. (it was never a decision, just an opinion based on the facts at hand) In this particular case it's made much worse by the sparse, poor wording in the fcc regs. The issue was not that ROS technically used SS type techniques. Or even could clearly be called SS using the ITU definition. Instead, the core issue was: did ROS behave like traditional SS in a way that would cause interference and thus was banned under 220 mhz. And the answer to that is clearly no. It behaves like many other AFSK'ish modes that use an SSB bandwidth. Other legal modes use randomization in a way that by very strict interpretation could be called SS. Had it hopped across 100khz, using vco rf stages, it'd clearly be illegal. Personally, I think it's unfair to compare to the other authors, as they have never had such a (real or perceived) attack on their software, the product of many hours of work. And we had cross language/culture issues at play here as well. This was not an I don't like it, or it does not work well, all authors have to deal with that. It was a we don't think it should be used debate. And much more personal and at risk. So my view is that we should all learn from this, put the swords back in the scabbards, and not alienate someone who took the time to create something innovative, and made it available for use. For free. And think real net loser hard next time before calling the FCC. Ham radio was the in this episode. We are already viewed as squabbling children at the FCC, and this type of episode just reinforces that view of amateur radio. Sincerely, Alan km4ba
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)
Dave, You make good points, and you've already hugely contributed and continue to contribute to Ham Radio, so I don't mean to question you. But if the FCC agent does not consider us Hams a bunch of squabbling children, I guess we are lucky. We sure look that way to me. I am deeply disappointed about this ROS affair. The major parties in the conflict did not conduct themselves well. As a citizen of the US, it is embarassing the FCC rules don't take bandwidth into account when defining what modes are legal on what bands, and they don't, as you point out, technically define spread spectrum. This probably does not look good to most of the rest of the ham radio world. But given the FCC's statement about each amateur radio operator being responsbile for determining what a mode is and where, therefore, it can be legally operated, I suspect the ham community in the US would have been better off letting each amateur make that determination. I don't think it was wise to immediately contact FCC and ask them, given the givens. This is usually true in every general situation like this, until all the facts can be gathered. At the same time, we have to admit that the author or ROS, similar to FCC's lack of clarity in their rules, has not technically defined ROS very well so far. I hope that changes. Overall, these past weeks have not been amateur radio's finest hours. Jim - K6JM Original Message Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages) From: Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com Date: Thu, March 04, 2010 10:25 am To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com I disagree. We are required to determine whether a mode is legal before using it. The author initially described ROS as being spread spectrum. Part 97 precludes the use of spread spectrum on HF, but gives no clear definition of spread spectrum. The FCC bears responsibility for this lack of clarity, and so cannot blame amateurs who seek their help in determining whether ROS is legal on HF. They do work for us, after all. In my conversation with Dawn (FCC agent 3820), there was not a whiff of why are you guys annoying us with this nonsense?. She wasn't happy about having her words publicly twisted into ROS is legal on HF, though. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of J. Moen Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 1:04 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages) And think real hard next time before calling the FCC. Ham radio was the net loser in this episode. We are already viewed as squabbling children at the FCC, and this type of episode just reinforces that view of amateur radio. AMEN. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Alan Barrow To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 8:06 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages) pd4u_dares wrote: ... considering legal action ... has an apparent plan ... may have understandably frustrated Jose I really have mixed feelings about how this all played out as well. While I don't agree with ban lists, I can see where the software author could get very frustrated at what could be perceived as an attempt to get a new mode banned. My observation is that when an arms length ham goes to the ARRL/FCC with an is this legal it nearly always results in a at first glance we do not think so. Historically, this is nearly always done by people opposed to the new mode, and looking to see it banned. Having seen this happen more than once, and having detailed information on two of those cases, it's the wrong way to handle such a query, even if done in good faith. And like most times this occurs, with more detail, and maybe a bit more objective presentation (like making it clear it's ssb bandwidth with an audio sample), the FCC Input is reversed. (it was never a decision, just an opinion based on the facts at hand) In this particular case it's made much worse by the sparse, poor wording in the fcc regs. The issue was not that ROS technically used SS type techniques. Or even could clearly be called SS using the ITU definition. Instead, the core issue was: did ROS behave like traditional SS in a way that would cause interference and thus was banned under 220 mhz. And the answer to that is clearly no. It behaves like many other AFSK'ish modes that use an SSB bandwidth. Other legal modes use randomization in a way that by very strict interpretation could be called SS. Had it hopped across 100khz, using vco rf stages, it'd clearly be illegal. Personally, I think it's unfair to compare to the other authors, as they have
RE: [digitalradio] Fabricating FCC approval
LA5VNA Steinar wrote: This has taken a whole new turn for me. I don't like this at all. I don't like it either, including the threats of legal action and the call for an ARRL official to resign (not that there isn't a good argument about a double standard here in the US, but this is not the time to make that argument). But I am a glass is half full type person. While I haven't taken the time to read everything carefully, and I'm travelling now and don't have time to access all the posts, I'm guessing Jose's interaction with the FCC agent was along the lines of each US amateur radio operator must determine what a mode is, and if it is legal and Jose took that to mean, or chose to take that to mean, that if a Ham read the new website and concluded it was a non SS digital mode, it would be legal. If that's true, and there's no way to know for sure, it's not quite the same as fabricating something, but it was likely not reporting FCC's full message, and it's understandable why FCC would ask ARRL to communicate the correction, trusting them not to twist the meaning of the message. In any case, it is time to move on. To amateurs worldwide, I hope you experiment with this new mode. If I were you, I'd try to forgot this sordid episode, and try to learn what's good about ROS, and suggest improvements as you see fit. Enjoy. I wish I could join you. Jim - K6JM Original Message Subject: [digitalradio] Fabricating FCC approval From: Steinar Aanesland saa...@broadpark.no Date: Fri, March 05, 2010 6:01 am To: * Digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Hi all I the past days there has been a fair and square discussion about SS and FCC rules. Maybe some is more Catholic than the pope when it comes to arguing for the FCC rules, but that we have to tolerate . Then a question about credibility comes into issue. It is no longer a question about SS and FCC rules, but IF there was a FABRICATED FCC approval on the web page, then the situation is MUCH more serious. This has taken a whole new turn for me. I don't like this at all. LA5VNA Steinar On 05.03.2010 04:33, Dave AA6YQ wrote: You are in denial, Jose. Anyone here can call (877) 480-3201, ask for Dawn (agent 3820), and hear first-hand that you distorted her response. Since her conversation with you was recorded, there is no doubt about what she told you. Until someone un-does the damage you've done by characterizing ROS as spread spectrum and then fabricating FCC approval on your web page, ROS cannot be used by US amateurs on HF bands. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] The cost of digital mode interfaces
I've had nothing but good luck with the Rascal. Used it for about 7 years. The newer ones now support PTT over a USB cable. Some of the connectors, particularly radio connectors, can be difficult to solder up, so the radio cable for your radio included with the Rascal is very nice. Support has been excellent, in my case. I do suspect that negative emails to Buck result in negative emails back. I've been careful to research my question first, send a succinct email, and I've gotten quick and polite responses back from Buck. For those who choose not to homebrew their own soundcare interface, I would definitely recommend the Rascal. The current price of the Rascal that supports either serial or USB PTT is about US $80. http://www.buxcomm.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=indexcPath=2 Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: David Struebel To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 7:21 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] The cost of digital mode interfaces A lot of hams have had problems with the RASCAL and the poor support and commications from the vendor of this product...See Eham reviews. http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/1384 I use and reccomend the Donner interface here with no issues and they are only $40... they come with all the connections for your specific radio and I think it also provides isolation on both the receive and transmit audio lines. http://home.att.net/~n8st/DDI-index.html Review http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/2073 73 Dave WB2FTX -- Original Message - From: Ralph Mowery To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 10:03 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] The cost of digital mode interfaces The basic sound card interface has never been very high. Look for one called Rascal. Here is one link to where to get them. http://www.packetradio.com/ I don't recall the price from years ago, but it was under $ 50 then. The kit was even less. Almost just the cost of the parts if bought in single lots. - Original Message From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com To: digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, March 6, 2010 8:34:05 AM Subject: [digitalradio] The cost of digital mode interfaces I was helping a ham get set-up for digital modes recently and turned to the issue of interfaces for digital modes. I researched the price for a Rigblaster Pro and was shocked that they sell for $299. My friend settled for another interface that cost $69, new. I was wondering about interfaces and wondering about whether the era of high priced interfaces might be coming to an end. I'm not talking about the ones that have extra features like electronic CW keying, high end soundcards , etc etc. I'm thinking that a device that has connectors, isolation circuits, pots, and a good solid enclosure, should be in the under $100 range. I know you can build your own for $20 or so, It is nice to see that many low price options exist nowadays. Andy K3UK No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2726 - Release Date: 03/06/10 02:39:00
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3rd Generation Digital radio
Simon, Interesting comment about EmComm in the UK. I live in an eathquake-prone area. We assume the telecoms infrastructure will be down for days or weeks, depending on severity. Hurricane Katrina showed other weather problems can take out the telecoms and power infrastructure for a long time. So EmComm experts here build up the ability to get back on the air without infrastructure. The DStar network, in my opinion should not be a primary part of the EmComm plan, but local unconnected repeaters running on emergency generators could help using DStar apps like DRats for accurate written forms over the radio. Presumably the command center would also have long distance RF links on traditional HF. Hams involvement in EmComm provides another huge resource -- trained people. If public service employees can't get to their work during a disaster, there will probably be some nearby, trained Hams available. The fact that they come with their own radios is a bonus. Responding to Julian G4ILO, I am old enough to remember the AMers complain about the terrible squawk from the new-fangled SSB. But the new technology (wasn't actually new, but new to many Hams in the late 50s) brought in new Hams, increased excitement, homebrewing, experimentation and fun. I see much of the same going on in the DStar community. Now that non-ICOM gear is getting on the air, a few Hams are homebrewing hardware and more are homebrewing software. There's a lot of excitement in this space now. Yes, it is a mixture of VOIP with RF technologies, and in normal times a cell phone would do the same thing, but that statement is true of traditional HF modes -- Hams worldwide could hang up their gear and go to telephones and the internet if simple communicating were the goal. I personally love to sit out in a field doing PSK31 with my NUE-PSK modem and an FT-817ND, both battery-operated, using a portable vertical that goes up in 3 minutes. No infrastructure at all, other than how the battery gets recharged every other day. Some portable solar panels would fix that. I don't get the same thrill using my cellphone or internet email. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Simon HB9DRV To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 12:54 AM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: 3rd Generation Digital radio D-Star repeaters provide much better coverage due to the codec (I base this on one test made which was most impressive). As for technology - this is part of the Education benefits in Amateur Radio, my interest in radio resulted in a degree in electronics mathematics. I listen almost all day while working on technology. Anyone can pick up a microphone and talk - so why not go 'down the pub' instead? Some believe that Radio Hams should be banned from all emergency situations in the UK. In countries with a much larger land mass such as the US it's arguable a different matter but for European countries with a good telecoms infrastructure? Simon Brown, HB9DRV http://sdr-radio.com -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of g4ilo Indeed, I don't really see that even D-Star enhances the hobby in any way I'm afraid that technology is starting to take the magic out of radio. Of course, I have a different perspective coming from the UK where amateur radio isn't regarded as primarily an emergency communications service. :)
Re: [digitalradio] Re : 3rd generation digital radio
Mel, You make a good point about our differences. In the US, EmComm is a niche that some hams fill enthusiastically, while others don't get involved but are grateful for those who do. It's always there to learn about in the future, like digital modes, QRP, EME, UHF DX, low bands, etc. So much to do, so much to learn, so little time Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: raf3151019 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 2:34 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re : 3rd generation digital radio I believe a substantial number of American radio amateurs regard using radio tranceivers and their associated pieces of equipment in an entirely different way to their counterparts in Europe. The two continents are entirely different and consequently the people who live in the two continents are different. In America great stress is put upon emergency survival, luckily in Europe we don't have to contend with regular tornado's and hurricanes, ice storms which destroy electricity supply to vast areas of the country, and huge amounts of melting snow which can raise river depths by tens of feet and cause flooding and hardship to many many thousands of people. Situations such as these occur rarely, if at all, in Europe, the continent is more densely populated and services to support the population are provided by professional trained personnel in every country at a substantial cost to its citizens. Luckily most of us in Europe regard amateur radio as a hobby, somewhat akin to fishing, we sit there, put out a call and don't know what we are about to catch, its a lucky dip ! Kind regards, Mel G0GQK
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
John W0JAB wrote: I like it (Pactor) and will operate it. You have every right to, assuming you don't interfere with an ongoing QSO etc. And someone calling your home and swearing at you was uncalled for, so to speak, and not in the spirit of ham radio. But several people have brought up some interesting issues. One was the statement this is an 'anti-Winlink without busy frequency detection' rant not an anti-Pactor rant. That never got answered. Another question was whether Pactor III's bandwidth was really necessary for live keyboard to keyboard QSOs. I guess that was an anti-Pactor III question, but that one also never got answered. Pactor III is reliable but expensive. I personally wish there were equally good (with error correction) but inexpensive alternatives for HF, and also that Winlink would be changed to listen first. Because I'm a big proponent of a diversity of modes, and I think we should work together to coexist. Heck, I like the old modes almost as much as the new ones. Also interesting was David KD4NUE's When there is a race for control of long-haul spectrum (for which there is a renewed interest among military, agency and NGOs), it is nice to have a dog in the hunt. That may help explain the ARRL's action, I guess. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 2:09 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support... I don't know Skip. Tell us. You seem to have an answer for everything and everyone. after thinking about that, don't tell us. I really don't care what you are others think about pactor. I like it and will operate it. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] in need of a USB to DB9 cable
Some USB/serial converters don't work with all programs. Probably something to do with the USB drivers. The best one I have was purchased from www.buxcomm.com -- it works with all the various digital mode programs I use, plus programmers for my HTs etc. It is US $15. http://www.buxcomm.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_infocPath=3products_id=678 Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 8:52 AM Subject: [digitalradio] in need of a USB to DB9 cable Anyone know of a source? John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
John W0JAB wrote: I Have only been a (ham) since 1968 and still learning. But I don't recall all of this happening 10 or more years ago. I got into amateur radio in 1959, and there were fairly strong disagreements between AMers and SSBers. In recent years, there have been disagreements between QROers and QRPers. Some high power folks are happy to talk to you until you let slip you are only running 3 watts, then they drop the QSO fast. Clearly folks who've had QSOs wiped out by automated HF stations have some strong feelings about that. Heck, I've had PSK31 QSOs disrupted by a CW operator coming on frequency, though narrow filters can help there. For as long as I've been listening, particularly on 80 meters, there are people who believe they own a frequency and behave that way. Right now, I see a lot of analog FM VHF/UHF operators quite upset with digital voice modes like D-Star. In regions where 2 meter repeater frequencies are scarce, there's quite a war going on about these new modes. But all of these are examples of the minority of hams, in my opinion. Most hams try to help each other, get along with each other and tolerate those who are into different facets of this great hobby. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support... Sorry to both of you. In the last week my mind has been elsewhere after my check up with my cancer doctor. Really need testing to be sure but right now he thinks that it may have return. But to answer both. No it is not needed. And if I may add that I only use it when connected to a BBS. Makes things a lot faster. I for one can't see using P3 for kb to kb QSO. Again I can't type that fast to keep up with the flow. But let's not just pick on pactor. What about RTTY? It seems that a lot will (for lack of a better work) *bitch* about anything 2 hz wider that a PSK signal. Now I Have only been a have since 1968 and still learning. But I don't recall all of this happening 10 or more years ago. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Individual software programs for various digital modes????
I typically don't load up Ham Radio Deluxe, I go directly to DM780, so while there is a lot of extra functionality there if you need it, you certainly don't have to ever see that. I really, really like DM780's superbrowser mode that displays and decodes all accessible PSK signals in the passband. Great for watching a bunch of QSOs in progress, then decide which one to go for as the QSO winds up. CQs are also real easy to spot that way. While I have used it for RTTY and a couple of other modes, typically it's set for PSK31 and stays that way for many sessions. So as a user, it feels like a simple PSK31 program, and for you, it could feel like a simple Olivia program. Jim - K6JM PS Sometimes more function can pay off. One of my upcoming projects is to set up HRD for remote controlling my HF radio over the internet so I can use it from the hotel room. But for homestyle, day to day hamming, I am sympathetic with Johnne W1YB's interest in simplicity. I think DM780 without HRD fulfills that. - Original Message - From: Ed G To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 2:42 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Individual software programs for various digital modes Jon, Do you REALLY consider Ham Radio Deluxe/DM780 to be small, individual digital mode software programs ??? Because that is what Johnne is looking for. I consider HRD/DM780 to be software suites with a zillion bells and whistles, which is exactly what Johnne is NOT looking for. Ed K7AAT From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jon Maguire Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 2:29 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Individual software programs for various digital modes Johnne Lee, 2 that come to mind are Ham Radio Deluxe/DM780 and fldigi. Google/Bing them and you won't be dissapointed. Both are outstanding and contain a plethora of modes. 73... Jon W1MNK On 6/15/2010 4:40 PM, JLA wrote: Hi All, I've been lurking a while and I've not found a clear (to me anyway) discussion of small, individual digital mode software programs, e.g., one program for RTTY; one program for Olivia, etc, etc... I have a 7200 and I am not at all interested in computer control of my rig. Neither am I interested in a software suite with a zillion bells and whistles that I will never, ever use. I am neither a contester nor DX-er. I doubt very, very seriously if I will ever work any digital modes other than Olivia and RTTY. My only current digital software program is MRP40 which is FB for QRQ CW especially in bad/weak signal conditions. It is worth every penny to me as I can not copy CW at the faster rates (25+ wpm.) Any guidance/advice anyone has will be greatly appreciated. 73 de W1YB Johnne Lee
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Individual software programs for various digital modes????
Julian G4ILO asked Does DM780 have a log, or do you need HRD for that? When DM780 is loaded by itself, you can have the Add Log Entry tab visible, but you can't actually use it. But you can load up the logbook without loading the full HRD. I created two shortcuts, so I can load each individually. The logbook then works normally, but to be honest, when I need the logbook, I typically load all of HRD. But the following is likely to work (the actual path on your computer might be slightly different): 1st shortcut - Target = C:\Program Files\Amateur Radio\Ham Radio Deluxe\Digital Master.exe 2nd shortcut - Target = C:\Program Files\Amateur Radio\Ham Radio Deluxe\HRDLogbook.exe Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: g4ilo To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 8:47 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Individual software programs for various digital modes I didn't realize you could use DM780 on its own. I have always found HRD way too complicated, and I don't need a screen full of radio controls taking up useful space when the radio's front panel is right next to me. The disadvantage of using different programs instead of standardizing on one is that you lose the benefits of computer logging. I guess the OP maintains a paper log so he isn't concerned with that aspect. Does DM780 have a log, or do you need HRD for that? Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, J. Moen j...@... wrote: I typically don't load up Ham Radio Deluxe, I go directly to DM780, so while there is a lot of extra functionality there if you need it, you certainly don't have to ever see that.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
I'm can understand how Garrett feels -- I felt something similar when we were all using the Melp codec for FDMDV on HF, and the owners of Melp kind of knew about it but since no one was trying to make money from it (we are amateurs and not in it for the money), they turned a blind eye to what we all were doing. But one of us just had to get an official answer from the Melp rights holder about our usage. Once officially asked, of course, they had to state that we had no right to use it. Melp usage went to zero in about three days. On the other hand, this ROS thing is a lot simpler. Forget the FCC. Here in the US, we also believe in doing the right thing and following the law, even if we are simultaneously trying to get the law changed. Unfortunately (and stupidly, in my opinion, since it should be bandwidth, not technique that's important), SS is not allowed in US jurisdictions below 220. Before all this stuff hit the fan, the author claimed it was SS, and various spectrum tests appear to back that up. So as a US ham, I'm not planning to use it, particularly since we have lots of data to show other solutions are either as good or better. In my opinion, my not using it is the right thing for me to do. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: AA0OI To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? HI: I Just have one question... HOW THE HELL OLD ARE YOU PEOPLE ?!! Grow Up, and let it die..You have all stabbed it enought to kill it 20 times over.. The only problem with this mode is that you all have to run and ask Uncle FCC what do we do , what do we do ? If everyone would just shut the hell up and use the mode and not whine like a 12 year old girl, the FCC would not even know that it existed or EVEN CARE !! Ham Radio is AMATEUR RADIO--- NOT PROFESSIONAL...Some of its use is for EXPERIMENTATION (if not we'd all be using spark-gap radios today !!! So THANKS for screwing ROS up for the rest of us that don't need Big Brothers permission to pee in the night.. And next time a new mode comes out... PLEASE just stay the hell away from it and go do something like PSK31or something else that you already have Permission to use from Uncle Government !! Its better to ask forgiveness,, because you'll never get permission and American : Thomas Jefferson Garrett / AA0OI -- From: rein...@ix.netcom.com rein...@ix.netcom.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 2:52:47 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? Skip, I have a lot of respect for you and appreciated every time you emailed me. Honest. Went yesterday through all messages on ROSMODEM and got the idea of some anti biases built in here and there. Almost from day in. You have numerous messages about US ROS use and I sense it. Sure I have a bias the other way, difference though, ROS is not my program. Even more interesting as far as Jose goes I might be his biggest enemy in the universe. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Sent: Jul 12, 2010 3:04 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? No, the problem is that the spread spectrum variants are mixed in with the others, all inside the ROS program, so any overall approval of ROS, which undiniably includes the non spread-spectrum modes, would accidentally approve the spread-spectrum modes also. I'm sure that the FCC is not that gullible! The only possible avenue to ever using ROS in the US is to file a petition to modify the regulations, just as everyone else has to do. This is the official procedure and I am sure the FCC is not interested in any re-evaluation of ROS, given what has happened and the posting of a false FCC approval. I am tired of all this Graham, so please forgive me if I do not reply any longer to these questions. I have enough to do to keep up with kit orders for my July QST interface and no time to constantly sit in front of this computer. I hope you understand... 73, Skip KH6TY SK On 7/12/2010 10:26 AM, graham787 wrote: That might be a way , what about the MF stations , could they not ask evaluate the MF mode ? There is even a petition for a new band to be allocated 70 MHz (not so new this side) so the process is available. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fourmetres/message/2836 Surely with the advertised technical base , it could be suggested by some one, the 'spirit' of the clause is now compromised by modern technology , and is no longer a valid point, as any attempt to adapt digital noise reduction to hf/vhf data modes will stall I note interest in adding the mode to
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS
That, and the fact that if you believe the author's original description of ROS that it uses spread spectrum, then it's not legal in the US on bands lower than 220. What's frustrating about the FCC rule is that ROS appears to use a relatively narrow band form of frequency hopping spread spectrum, so while the FCC prohibition of FHSS below 220 might be defensible for the original wider bandwidth SS, it becomes much harder to defend in the case of ROS. In fact, I don't remember reading any posts on any email lists that believe the current rule (with a blanket prohibition of all forms of SS) makes sense. But, right now at least, that's the rule in the US. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:40 AM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS If one was to just disconnect from the net would the program later try to post? It seems that this is the main concern of many? John, W0JAB EM49lk
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
There's the generally accepted definition of SS, quoted below and referring to bandwidths greatly exceeding what's necessary, and then there's the way the FCC regs are written, which do not refer to that definition. I think just about everyone, or maybe absolutely everyone who cares about the FCC regs, thinks in this case they are inappropriate, but the fact is, they do not allow for narrow-band SS, even though it would cause no real harm. The regs should be changed, but until they are, we in the US can not use SS below 220, or we can move to another country, or we can violate the regs, and/or we can campaign to change them. But saying you don't agree with a law so you don't have to follow it is not the right way. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: rein...@ix.netcom.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 11:23 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum Hi Alan, Why did you wait so long with contributing here? Please explain. ++ In Feb of this year I quoted from the ARRL's Spread Spectrum Source book page 5-2 ++ Spread Spectrum Fundamentals SS systems employ radio frequency bandwidths that greatly exceed the bandwidth necessary to convey the intelligence. Bandwidths for SS systems generally run from 10 to 100 times the information rate. etc etc. I got shouted out of the Group by addressing the use of ROS in the US by the experts on SS. 73 Rein W6SZ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
This question of bandwidth for various modes and where to squeeze in the wider modes is a good topic. Reminds me of the folks who really like enhanced fidelity SSB (3.5 out to nearly 5 kHz), or AM. There are many bands at certain times of day that have lots of space for those modes, but I'd hope those hams would be kind to the rest of us, for example during a contest or when certain bands are chock-full. I think if 3 kHz SSB is ok, that 2.25 kHz modes (ROS as an example) should be ok, as long as the frequencies chosen are prudent for the band and time of time. That discussion is entirely separate from the US legal questions about SS modes on HF. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: g4ilo To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 2:35 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Barrow ml9...@... wrote: - Simplistic bandwidth comparisons that do not factor in total throughput. (IE: The effect of processor gain, FEC, etc). I don't think ROS was stellar here, but the idea that a wider mode for X data rate is worse than a narrower mode is flawed. Otherwise we'd all be using RTTY. FEC increases bandwidth for the same data rate, but the trade off surfaces over sustained measurement in real (difficult) HF conditions. Skip's work did show there was not a big win for ROS, so we arrived at the right spot. But many were banning just because it was wider than their favorite mode! I don't know if that is a dig at one of the arguments I have made in the past, but I do believe that 2.25kHz ROS was too wide for our existing HF bands. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of a mode, people can't go on inventing new modes unless they can also come up with a place for them to be used that doesn't squeeze out existing users. Even three channels was patently inadequate for the number of users wishing to use ROS with the result that most of the contacts made, as evidenced by the spots posted here, were anything but weak signal DX as the chances of finding 2.25kHz of 20m unoccupied are pretty slim at any time. Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] ROS back bigger and better !
Your Subject says ROS is better. Where can I read about the changes and improvements? Can users control whether ROS should generate the artificial spots? Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Peter L. Jackson To: * Digitalradio Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 6:37 PM Subject: [digitalradio] ROS back bigger and better ! Spain kicks another goal !!! v4.7.0 Beta By suggestion of CO2DC and The man of the Vara I will continue to develop ROS. A new Sked page have been linked to ROS software. http://www.ham2ham.com/room307_ros.php Peter VK6KXW vk6...@gmail.com
Re: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE
Check out ARRL's web site at http://www.arrl.org/renewals which says: As one of the many benefits we offer ARRL members, ARRL members will automatically receive a form from ARRL with instructions on license renewal once they are just outside the 90 day window for renewal of their amateur license. This will be a letter with a form at the bottom of the letter to sign and return to the ARRL VEC. Amateurs can renew no sooner than 90 days before the expiration of the license. License modifications or NON-Vanity renewal procedures are a free membership service. Vanity renewals require a FCC Regulatory Fee and a $5 ARRL processing fee. - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 12:42 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE At 11:52 AM 7/17/2010, you wrote: And if you are an ARRL member, they will do it for you free. 73 Buddy WB4M Thanks buddy, and yes, a life member Do I need to do anything or is this an automatic happens thing they do? John, W0JAB HOT STICKY Missouri. Q How do you know it's summer in Missouri A the blacktop melts
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS v4.7.4 Beta
I know this is out of fashion, but I really like PSK31, for its narrow bandwidth and effectiveness with low power. It was the first mode I ever did where I could have a QSO with a signal burried by the noise. I like some of the newer modes, and am happy to see the popularity of Olivia and Contestia. Of course, intellectually, I probably prefer CW to all of these, since its the first digital mode, but I just never developed the skill I wanted in that mode. RTTY was something as a new ham in the early 1960s that I badly wanted to do, but teletypes were hard to get and life intervened, and I didn't actually do any RTTY until recently. It was like driving a wonderful old car from the 1930s -- slow, inefficient, unwieldy, but neat just because it's old. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: la7um To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:10 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS v4.7.4 Beta Wow Steinar. This really tells the true story about your (and mine) love for RTTY (stoneage/museum,power wasting,polluting KW) KAANTEST MODE. TTY was created for cables, not radio, I believe. Hi. la7um Finn --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland saa...@... wrote: Despite the massive criticism, this fascinating ROS guy has now released a new version of his software. http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/ Sorry Buddy, but I have to admit, I find ROS more interesting than anachronistic contest mode like RTTY. la5vna Steinar
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Your definition might be called what good SS is and the way ROS does SS might be called what bad SS is. But how wide is PSK31? Is ROS wider? So ROS is wider than needed to convey intelligence. What's sad is that one country's regulations (and they affect me since I live there) focus on the mechanism instead of the bandwidth. Your point is well taken, but not relevant to people under the FCC's jurisdiction. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: jsavitsky To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 2:39 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Beagley ajbeag...@... wrote: It seems to me that the developer of the mode may have cooked his own goose: he declared it to be a spread-spectrum mode, and spread-spectrum is mot legal on HF in the USA. In spite of what author claims, ROS is not a spread spectrum mode. Spread spectrum definition said that the SS signal is spread over the much wider frequency band (orders of magnitude) than the bandwidth minimum required to convey the intelligence. Let's take a pencil and do some math to check this with Shannon-Hartley law for channel capacity: C = B log2 (1 + S/N), where C channel capacity in bps, B channel bandwidth in Hz, S/N signal to noise ratio. ROS1 mode is capable of 21 characters per second and -30 dB S/N. Assume we have 7 bit characters. So, it's 21 * 7 / 60 = 2.45 bps. S/N = (-30 dB) = 0.001. The required channel bandwidth to transmit 2.45 bps with -30 dB S/N ratio will be: B = C / log2 (1 + S/N) = 2.45 / log2 (1 + 0.001) = 1699 Hz It's not hard to see that 1699 Hz ~ 2250 Hz. With this example it needs to be at least 17 kHz for name it spread spectrum. 73 Alan NV8A 73 Ivan UR5VIB
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
I agree that traditional SS spread across a very large portion of the band would be bad here in the US if a lot of stations were using it at once. ROS, though we know it's not as good as several other modes, is not that kind of SS. It has limited bandwidth, not much different from a number of other modes, and the ban against it doesn't make sense. So I don't agree with the FCC approach to their regulations, where they ban how the intelligence is transmitted rather than the bandwidth the signal occupies. At the same time, I just can't believe some of my fellow countrymen who think it's ok to pick and choose which rules you'll follow. If you don't like the rules against petty theft, do you just steal? The right way is to campaign to get the rules you don't like changed, and until you do, follow them. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: KH6TY To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:38 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! I think there are valid reasons for the FCC only allowing spread spectrum above 222 Mhz (where there is plenty of room!). A single spread spectrum signal on HF may go unnoticed by most stations, but what happens if 100 (in range) are on at the same time? The statistical chances that where will be QRM on your frequency are much higher, the more stations that are on. Our bands have very limited spectrum, and therefore it is up to all of us to cooperate in using the least bandwidth that will do the job. Perhaps it has been forgotten that five years ago, it was the practice for a single wideband Pactor-II mailbox to obliterate the entire PSK31 segment of the 20m band, displacing as many as 30 PSK31 stations. It was only after much discussion that the Pactor mailboxes agreed to move elsewhere. However there remains a Canadian Pactor-III automatic (not listening first) mailbox station just below 14.070 that makes that area unusable by anyone else. The FCC regulations in the US do not allow US Pactor-III mailboxes to operate there, but, without consideration to others, the Canadian Pactor-III station (just across the border) just dominates that frequency at will when it could just as well operate in the automatic subbands with all the other Pactor-III mailboxes. This is a good example of not getting along with your neighbors! The FCC rules may seem unfair, and I am sure SOME are unfair, but there is a process of amendment that insures fair access by all parties, as best can be done. So, if you do not agree with the FCC rules (that PROTECT as well as hinder), take the step of filing a petition to amend the rules and make your case, but do not disregard the current rules because you think they are unfair, because others may not think the same, and they may be harmed by your breaking the rules. We all have to try to get along, and the best way to do that is to observe the local regulations, which have been made for the benefit of the many and not just for the benefit of the select few. If the regulations really deserve to be changed, make your case and let the process of public comment by ALL concerned parties determine what should be done. The FCC makes regulations only for the public benefit, and only after giving everyone a chance to comment. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK spectrum efficiency
I completely understand the lure of the old mechanical teleprinters. But I have to say I was surprised at my reaction to the addition of RTTY to the firmware in my NUE-PSK modem. I typically use the NUE-PSK battery powered plugged into my 817 while doing QRP in the field. I don't need to lug along a laptop to do PSK31. Apparently it was easy for them to add RTTY support, and by golly, I found myself doing the occasionally RTTY QSO using this little device. And it was fun. I would not have guessed a modern little device like the NUE-PSK would ever support RTTY, and I would not have guessed I'd get a kick out of it. I mean, I still prefer other digital modes, but RTTY once in a while can be fun too, I've discovered. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Ralph Mowery To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 4:03 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK spectrum efficiency - Original Message From: g4ilo jul...@g4ilo.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 4:29:15 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK spectrum efficiency Just because a mode is better doesn't mean that people will want to use it, though, and I guess both RTTY and PSK31 are so established now that you'll never persuade people to give them up. Julian, G4ILO While rtty can be replaced by other modes, they will not run on the 50 plus old mechanical printers and the demodulators that go with them. Just as some like to run AM on the ham bands. Not that good of a use of bandwidth, but just something to play with that many enjoy.I doubt that many hams that run the digital modes can really type very fast and depend on the micros in the programs. For the ones doing it in real time, psk31 probably has enough speed.
Re: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input
Will be interesting to compare this effort to the NUE-PSK, which takes a different appoach. They have a modem that plugs directly into a transceiver's Data port eliminating the need for PCs and soundcards, but they are now working on a NUE-SDR transceiver that either will fit as a card inside the little modem, or attach underneath it (not sure what their final design will be). This would eliminate both the PC and a separate transceiver. http://www.nue-psk.com/ Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: obrienaj To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 5:20 PM Subject: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input I am developing a 'modem' to directly modulate computer generated modes to RF thus eliminating the requirement of using a transceiver audio input Welcome to the group, tell us more. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input
Remote control. Very useful in some situations. Especially if you aren't allowed to have decent antennas where you live. The kick I get from battery-operated QRP operation is communicating without infrastructure. I am out there with a battery, a radio, a NUE-PSK modem and a portable antenna. No internet, no power company. (Full disclosure -- I don't yet have a portable solar facility to recharge my battery, so right now I'm still tied to power company infrastructure for re-charging. But architecturally, I don't have to be.) As you say, both approaches have value. This diversity is why Ham Radio is so interesting Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Gary Edwards To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input NUE PSK is great for back packing and mobile operation so long as only PSK 31 or RTTY is of interest. Computers offer a richer display with more options and the ability to generate many different modes. The idea is to go directly from the computer via IP to a back box that is broadband and can be remotely located and is mode agnostic. Both approaches have their own advantages. -- From: J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 8:50:07 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input Will be interesting to compare this effort to the NUE-PSK, which takes a different appoach. They have a modem that plugs directly into a transceiver' s Data port eliminating the need for PCs and soundcards, but they are now working on a NUE-SDR transceiver that either will fit as a card inside the little modem, or attach underneath it (not sure what their final design will be). This would eliminate both the PC and a separate transceiver. http://www.nue-psk.com/ Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: obrienaj To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 5:20 PM Subject: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input I am developing a 'modem' to directly modulate computer generated modes to RF thus eliminating the requirement of using a transceiver audio input Welcome to the group, tell us more. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input
Well, I set up a portable chair that has a small shelf on the side where I place my 817. Battery on the ground. The NUE-PSK and very small keyboard sit on my lap. Works very comfortably. With PSK, I don't need to tune the radio very often, typically. I also liked the Commodore back in those days. And my dad had a TI 99 (I think it was). When computers were real and printed line by line on the screen. None of this namby pamby GUI stuff. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: James Hall To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 8:04 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input It'd be pretty cool if that nue-psk device was a little more like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80_Model_100 With the built in keyboard. Is it very cumbersome to have that, a keyboard and your radio going all at once? On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:20 PM, J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com wrote: Remote control. Very useful in some situations. Especially if you aren't allowed to have decent antennas where you live. The kick I get from battery-operated QRP operation is communicating without infrastructure. I am out there with a battery, a radio, a NUE-PSK modem and a portable antenna. No internet, no power company. (Full disclosure -- I don't yet have a portable solar facility to recharge my battery, so right now I'm still tied to power company infrastructure for re-charging. But architecturally, I don't have to be.) As you say, both approaches have value. This diversity is why Ham Radio is so interesting Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Gary Edwards To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input NUE PSK is great for back packing and mobile operation so long as only PSK 31 or RTTY is of interest. Computers offer a richer display with more options and the ability to generate many different modes. The idea is to go directly from the computer via IP to a back box that is broadband and can be remotely located and is mode agnostic. Both approaches have their own advantages. -- From: J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 8:50:07 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input Will be interesting to compare this effort to the NUE-PSK, which takes a different appoach. They have a modem that plugs directly into a transceiver' s Data port eliminating the need for PCs and soundcards, but they are now working on a NUE-SDR transceiver that either will fit as a card inside the little modem, or attach underneath it (not sure what their final design will be). This would eliminate both the PC and a separate transceiver. http://www.nue-psk.com/ Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: obrienaj To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 5:20 PM Subject: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input I am developing a 'modem' to directly modulate computer generated modes to RF thus eliminating the requirement of using a transceiver audio input Welcome to the group, tell us more. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Ubuntu - thank you
I think you got some great answers, with the general theme that Linux is an excellent operating system AND people have written native Linux ham programs that also are excellent. Bottom line -- hams will be more than happy running Linux as their prime operating system. There was one replier who felt the need to denigrate Windows (You will be rewarded with inexpensive secure software that is very robust and stable. Something you never had with Windows and it's what makes Linux great.) That part is kind of hard to understand. My Win XP SP3 machine has never crashed, not even once over these many years. At work, our Vista machines never go down, except when Building Maintenance decides to cut power to the mains. And I have used wonderfully robust Windows programs for many years. The fact that Windows is both stable and robust does not mean I think Linux isn't. In fact, since I first read about Unix in 1977 and in the 80s played with various PC ports of Unix, and later Linux over the years, it's been fascinating to see this platform flourish and grow. It IS an excellent operating system. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: n0alo To: digiradio Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 4:53 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Ubuntu - thank you Thank you everyone for the very usefull information. The response was great!. I think I will install both on the HD so I can choose on boot-up for the time being. I have been told that once using Ubuntu for awhile, I will never want to go back to windows. We will see. Thanks again Lynn
Re: [digitalradio] Re: World's nastiest PSK31 signal
Maybe, but I had a nice PSK31 QSO with a CO last week. He had a very clean signal. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: KB3FXI To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 3:21 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: World's nastiest PSK31 signal Andy, I've seen some CO psk signals that would beat that by a mile. -Dave, KB3FXI --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: On 10M tonight, from Mexico See attached, the image around 500 Hz is his MAIN signal with LOTS of side bars, and the image around 1700 Hz is also him ! Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: The worlds nastiest PSK signal
You are not too fussy. We should all try to have clean signals. Imagine if everyone were that wide during a contest. If enough people give the bad signal operators accurate feedback, perhaps many of those operators will try to fix the problem. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: raf3151019 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2010 11:40 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: The worlds nastiest PSK signal I see some like that, and surprisingly they are often like London buses, you have two or three appearing at the same time ! The other day an horrendous load of krap was being generated by a German station and I told him three times, in an hour, about the poor quality of his transmission. But he continued on regardless, and made contacts and I don't think anybody else mentioned it. Its quite obvious then that I'm too fussy ! Regards, Mel G0GQK
Re: [digitalradio] Good USB sound card ?
The Signalink doesn't require a separate line from the PC to the interface for PTT. Instead, it has its own VOX circuitry to key the transmitter when it hears data from the PC. Some people really prefer this. I happen to prefer having the PC program (HRD's DM780 in my case) directly control PTT. My main pc has a spare serial port that I use for this purpose, but I've also used it on my laptop with a USB to serial adapter. It's really easy to build just a serial PTT circuit from a few cheap parts. If I used the Signalink USB, I'd do that and not use its VOX. Or, you can get an interface that expects the PTT line froom the PC and drives the radio's PTT pin. In my case, I'm using a Buxcomm Rascal as the interface. It doesn't have a built-in soundcard like the Signalink USB, so I have used a US $10 soundcard that I added to my tower PC, and right now I'm using an external USB sound device (both the Creative USB Soundblaster and the Creative Audigy NX at different times). It's a little more hardware than the Signalink approach, but I get my PC-driven PTT. I have also played with the very inexpensive USB sound FOBs you can get on eBay for almost free. But, as I say, some people really prefer the VOX PTT. So we all have choices. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Raymond Lunsford To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 3:01 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Good USB sound card ? Yes,use Signalink USB.I've got one works great,K4YDI. On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:04 PM, graham787 g0...@hotmail.com wrote: Looks like theRDX-150-EF has been dropped any ideas on a 'good' usb card for data use ?? Tnx - G.
Re: [digitalradio] Digital Modes With Netbook (Was 'Good USB Soundcard')
Jon KB1QBZ wrote: the need to run HRD AND the logbook AND the IP server in v5.x in order to get a logbook and the real-time identification... I run a Beta version 5 of DM780 and often start it directly by itself, just to check the bands. If I need the logbook, I can load it separately. Logbook wants to start up the IP server. But HRD itself is not required, in my experience. I just create shortcuts to DM780 and HRD Logbook and use that to get these going. On my machine, the shortcuts point to C:\Program Files\Amateur Radio\Ham Radio Deluxe\Digital Master.exe C:\Program Files\Amateur Radio\Ham Radio Deluxe\HRDLogbook.exe Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: JonP To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 3:57 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Digital Modes With Netbook (Was 'Good USB Soundcard') In the 'Good USB Soundcard' thread, someone was asking about using netbooks with digital modes. I've been testing digital modes with a couple of different netbook computers from Acer and HP using fldigi, DM-780 (version 4.x), and DM-780 (v5.x). All were running Win XP. The netbooks worked well with a Signalink USB and fldigi as well as DM-780 (v4.x). HOWEVER, I found that I needed to upgrade the netbooks from 1GB to 2GB of memory for them to work well with the RIGblaster PlugNPlay and RIGblaster nomic. Before I upgraded, the computer had a tendency to lock up in receive. Once I upgraded, the computers worked well with the RIGblasters. I've tested with PSK-31 and PSK-63, Contestia (various), DominoEX (various), MFSK (various), MT63 (various), Feld Hell, Olivia (various), and Throb (various). I've also tested with NBEMS using MFSK and DominoEX without problem. I have not been happy using the netbooks with DM-780 v5.x. It seems to be because v5.x requires running HRD AND the separate logbook program AND the IP Server in order to get the logbook and real-time call letter identification (DM-780 v4.x didn't require all of that overhead). I've noticed a tendency for the netbooks to hang for at least a couple of seconds every so often. By the way, if I'm misinterpreting the need to run HRD AND the logbook AND the IP server in v5.x in order to get a logbook and the real-time identification, someone please tell me. Jon, KB1QBZ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New guy
Steve, There have been some terrific responses with some great advice. I'll focus only on the interface between the radio and the PC's soundcard. Even for casual usage, I'd recommend that you not use the built-in soundcard that came with your computer, and that you probably use for PC things like playing CDs or DVD sound, or even Echolink, VOIP or other PC mike/speakers usage. So either get an interface with an external soundcard built into it (the Signalink USB is an excellent choice), or somehow get a 2nd soundcard for your PC that you will use only for digital mode applications. Just a few years ago, I'd have recommended for your tower or desktop PC that you simply add a cheap sound card. But many people now are using laptops that don't support adding cards to them. So if you don't go with a combined interface/soundcard device like the Signalink, I'd recommend you get an external soundcard connected to the PC with a USB cable. There are good ones from the Creative Soundblaster line, but I'm sure there are many other good ones. There are even some tiny USB sound dongles, but they really vary in quality. Still, if you get one that works, they are small and easy to connect. The reason you want a second soundcard is so that you can keep all your cables connected up permanently and can switch to digital modes without any hassel. You won't have to unplug the PC's mike and speakers and connect up the cables to your interface. All your PC sound level settings will stay the same and won't need to be adjusted when you fire up the digital mode. The Signalink USB interface has a feature that some really like -- it has a built-in VOX circuit that will key PTT on your radio when it hears the PC generate output tone data. This means you don't need an extra cable from the PC to the interface to carry PTT info. Hooking up a Signalink USB the first time is really easy. I personally prefer having the PC key the transmitter explicitly. This is personal preference only, and many prefer the VOX approach. Anyway, I have an external USB sound device connected to a Buxcomm Rascal interface. So I need a cable from the interface to the PC (the current Rascal will suport either a serial or a USB cable) for PTT. I don't mind this extra cable, and I like explicit control of PTT. But that's just me. Good luck! Jim - Original Message - From: KB3FXI To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 2:03 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New guy Jon, Excellent explanation! You should be a teacher (if you aren't already). And, Stephen... welcome to the hobby and digital modes. Here's my personal preference with some elaboration: Interface: USB Signalink USB Signalink has an on board sound card so you don't have to tie up your computer soundcard. It also only has 2 cables... one to the radio and a USB to the computer. Power is supplied by the USB cable. I've found the devices with rats nests of audio and power cables hanging off them give a much greater chance for picking up RF and locking up your computer. Software: NBEMS / FLDIGI (www.w1hkj.com) FLDIGI multimode software is built for all major platforms. So, if you go from Windows to MAC, you just download the MAC version and away you go. This is a preference thing, but I like the single window display of FLDIGI. However, if you're going to get into contesting, I think the logging and automatic rig control may be a bit more advanced and better refined on HRD. Rig control is where your radio and software share info such as frequency, filter settings, volume, etc. You can change frequencies and settings on the rig from the software. I've not had much luck with NBEMS rig control but I don't care enough about the feature to bother to trouble shoot it. With regard to the software the good thing is both HRD and NBEMS/FLDIGI are free, so you can check them out and see what you think before going down one path or another. I'd take up some of the fellows offers to help you down your way. And if you can meet up and have someone give you a demo, that's the way to go. The first time you open some of these programs, it can look much more complicated than it actually is. Good luck and let us know when you're ready to make some digital contacts. I've chatted with quite a few hams in LA on both digital and phone... maybe we'll get lucky and meet up on a good path. -Dave, KB3FXI --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, JonP jpere...@... wrote: Some of your questions are sort of which taste better -- apples or oranges? and you may get all sorts of different answers depending on personal preference. I'll give you some of what I believe are the differentiating factors. I'll also tell you my personal decisions but they are mine and others will not agree because it's a personal thing. HRD vs. Others: There are a couple of programs like HRD,
Re: [digitalradio] Digital Voice News - VK5DGR's Open Source Codec
This is very, very good news, and it may turn out to be a very big deal. It will be fun to hear reports from the early adopters. There aren't many people who can write this kind of code -- if you like where Dave is headed, you may want to donate to his CODEC2 effort that's referred to in the link below. Ever since we all discovered that MELP was not legally available, we've all been waiting for something good that's open source. CODEC2 may allow a narrow enough bandwidth for widespread use on HF, and it may provide an alternative for VHF/UHF digital voice in the future. While I don't begrudge D-Star's use of the $25 AMBE proprietary codec on a chip, that approach prevents the kind of experimentation that hams are famous for. A software only codec would be very welcome as the future unfolds Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 12:24 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Digital Voice News - VK5DGR's Open Source Codec All, Dave Rowe, VK5DGR, has just released an open source speech codec that could potentially be used in such digital voice applications as FDMDV and WinDRM. Dave says that his new CODEC2 needs work, but the speech quality of the Alpha release is pretty good. He has a few audio samples of CODEC2 and the proprietary codec MELP (for comparison) on his website: http://www.rowetel.com/blog/?page_id=452 For more information, visit Dave's main site at http://www.rowetel.com/blog/ Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] New
There's a good introduction to APRS at http://www.wa8lmf.net/bruninga/aprs.html At the bottom of that page is a link to join the TAPR APRSSIG email list. It is very active and I'd recommend you join. My other suggestion applies if you would like to have some fun at home right off the bat. Download a copy of UI-View32 from http://www.ui-view.org/ You can start out running this program to watch other position beacons as they are reported through RF digipeaters with IGate capability. That is, you can play with APRS reporting from data on the internet even before you hook up your PC to your radio. You can focus on any location you want, world-wide. My first introduction to APRS, years ago, was when a friend took a vacation and beaconed the whole trip. I could watch in near real time as he navigated across the US. In addition to UI-View32, you can use the findu.com site to lookup APRS info directly on the internet. To focus on your home town of Joplin, MO, using findu.com, I looked for APRS activity near your lat/long as reported on qrz.com for your callsign: http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/near.cgi?lat=37.034415lon=-94.509317last=240distance=200n=100rate=1 It shows the activity in your area, and the fact that there's an IGate in Joplin. Next you can connect to your radio and begin to have UI-View32 issue position reports from your home QTH. You can configure UI-View32 with your fixed lat/long info and don't need a GPS for that. Some people who have a home weather station that can connect to their PC will use that to have their home QTH APRS beacons contain the latest temp, wind, etc. If it's still fun, I'd consider the other recommendations you've gotten. As Jeff KE7ACY pointed out If you want to send out APRS packets so that others can track your movements - all you need is a TinyTrak type device and an HT. That can be fun. One time I was at Dayton for the Hamvention. I typically bring along my HT and a mag mount for the rental car. Hooked up the gps to the HT as I drove around the area. I'd given my wife the findu.com link to track me, and she called me on the cell from back in California and asked why I was on the freeway going 8 miles per hour. I thought that was pretty funny, while I sat there in the traffic jam. As suggested by others, you can go whole hog while mobile and bring along a lap or netbook and hook your gps to that, and to the radio. People do that, but I would first try some of the simpler ideas listed above to get started. Good luck. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Dan To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 5:18 PM Subject: [digitalradio] New I would like to try APRS, but have no idea where to start. I now have a GPS unit from TomTom. What else do I need and where do I start? Thank you, Dan Walker WD5CND
Re: [digitalradio] Fwd: [KenwoodTS-2000] D-Star with the TS-2000
There are people who probably have the answers to the points you make since some have already had DX QSOs using D-Star -- I haven't, so I'm looking to try this out on 10 meters. Mostly I think your prediction will turn out to be correct. I am expecting that only under near-perfect conditions between the two parties will D-Star make it via HF propagation. My experience on VHF is that it's extremely susceptible to multipath. On the other hand, during previous sunspot cycles, I've experienced near-perfect conditions on 10 meters. I definitely would not see the present D-Star for everyday digital voice on HF, though I can see some value in a 6 meter repeater, and some 10 meter activity, with callsign routing, repeater/reflector linking, low speed data, short messages, etc. 10 meters has a lot of real estate, so I would think the wider bandwidth of D-Star will not be un-neighborly except possibly during a busy contest. But then, that's true of a lot of modes on HF during contests. It will be fun to watch David Lowe's Codec2 project evolve and see how narrow a bandwidth he can achieve. For everyday DV on HF, that may be the best path. In the meantime, I'd just like to experiment and learn. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 12:04 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Fwd: [KenwoodTS-2000] D-Star with the TS-2000 I have to agree that it would be interesting to experiment with the D-Star modem, but it doesn't seem practical for HF. In addition to gobbling up a fair amount of spectrum, I suspect that it would be difficult to maintain the required SNR with a modem that's 6KHz wide. The narrow-band FDMDV modem worked out well by not only improving sensitivity over WinDRM, but by allowing one to squeeze the signal between the adjacent QRM. The modems quick recover time was a real plus as well - not sure how long it takes for the D-Star modem to re-sync. Tony -K2MO
