any suggestions then ie rigblasters ect??
MATTHEW A. GREGORY
KC2PUA
- Original Message
From: Peter Frenning [OZ1PIF] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 3:32:48 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: signalink sL+
kh6ty skrev:
Skip
Hi Peter,
I have not had hardware RS232C ports for a number of years and have used
the USB to RS232 adapters with some success. The main issue is having a
driver from your OS for that particular adapter. Older legacy adapters
may not have drivers.
There are newer adapters that work out the
Peter OZ1PIF/5Q2M wrote:
Either you have to add an external USB- RS232
[...] or resort to the VOX solution.
Hi Peter,
For ARQ or handshaking modes, VOX is simply
way too slow. Signalink will not work.
Not an option. Let's crunch the numbers:
1. Really fast VOX with 25milliSecond PTT delay.
Seems we are reaching the age of the crippled PC. For a desktop there
should still be a chance of adding a serial port PCI card. I have never
used the parport for PTT so far, and it seems I never will...
USB is adequate for most common PC jobs, but not for interfacing radios
without some
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2008/08/26/10284/?nc=1
Bonnie and all,
I use the SignalLink SL-1+ (older version, not USB) for ARQ modes
successfully. I use MultiPSK and the ARQ modes I have tested and had
working are: ALE 141A, ALE400, Pax/Pax2 and Packet.
As there is no sound card Pactor (or AMTOR) ARQ there is no way to see
if it works but I
Sholto Fisher wrote:
Bonnie and all,
I use the SignalLink SL-1+ (older version, not USB)
for ARQ modes successfully. I use MultiPSK and the
ARQ modes I have tested and had
working are: ALE 141A, ALE400, Pax/Pax2 and Packet.
Hi Sholto,
The fact that you were able to make contacts
Hi Bonny,
so what's better instead of signalink sl1+/ usb
73, Jürgen
DG8FDD
- Original Message -
From: expeditionradio
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 6:51 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Sholto Fisher wrote:
Hi Bonnie,
The SL-1+ has a TX delay of 28ms on its fast setting.
I first tried using direct PTT for ALE400 FAE (like I do for Pactor) but
found no noticeable difference in performance versus the SL-1+ VOX PTT.
Does it really make that much difference?
73 Sholto.
expeditionradio wrote:
I agree completely with Sholto. As I mentioned previously, the
asynchronous ARQ modes don't have any problem with reasonable speed
switching time. In fact, this is one of the reasons for the move to
develop more ham friendly ARQ modes and away from the legacy hardware
modes that were
Looks interesting. I wonder if enough information will be made available to
allow duplicating the modem under other operating systems and platforms.
Hopefully, the development team is actually doing parallel development for
use in *nix environments.
-Original Message-
From:
I really hope the code or at least a DLL is made available. Anything to get
rid of PACTOR III has my vote (I do not like the licencing issues involved).
Simon Brown, HB9DRV
www.ham-radio-deluxe.com
- Original Message -
From: Bob Donnell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Looks interesting. I wonder
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Sholto Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Bonnie,
Does it really make that much difference?
73 Sholto.
Yes, it really does make a difference :)
Please see my previous explanation where I
detailed the exact number of symbols that
are deleted by
Bonnie what do you suggest using with out spend a whole lot
i was also looking at the rigblaster plug and play usb
MATTHEW A. GREGORY
KC2PUA
- Original Message
From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:47:27 PM
Sorry to harp on about this but ALE400 has a baud rate of 50 (20ms
length) and the VOX PTT is 28ms plus allowing for say a 12ms delay from
a modern rig that is only 40ms total delay on transmit, just 2 symbols.
From MultiPSK's help file:
In ALE400 it is transmitted 28 symbols, alternately on
matt gregory wrote:
Bonnie what do you suggest using with out spend
a whole lot
i was also looking at the rigblaster plug and play usb
MATTHEW A. GREGORY
KC2PUA
Hi Matthew,
The Rigblaster Plug N Play is an excellent choice.
Almost any of the interfaces that include PTT
using
Sholto Fisher wrote:
I can't believe it makes any significant
difference at least for ALE400 FAE.
Hi Sholto,
Whether you believe it or not, that's
up to you. But the math doesn't lie,
and neither does the oscilloscope.
IMHO, any interface that chops off part of your
transmission, for
There is one exception to the rule.
Pskmail arq works perfectly with vox. Just a matter of optimizing the
protocol to fit common hardware instead of the reverse...
The trick (thanks K9PS) is to send up to 512 bytes of data in a frame and
allow some more time for the switchovers.
73,
Rein
I have not used a SignalLink interface. I have used VOX to operate RFSM2400,
which worked quite well after I dropped the VOX delay to .5 sec. There is a
sync pulse at the beginning of the RFSM burst that allows this to work well.
The main reason I don't use VOX for data is because I want to
Hello to all,
About slow asynchronous ARQ modes as ARQ FAE, Pax, Pax2 and even Packet
there is no much problem to have several dozens of ms in delay. This because
due to sound card buffers, the obligation to work even with slow computers,
and due to slow modulation, it is introduced big
Hi all,
I've just joined a few weeks ago and this is my first posting to the
egroup. I'm new to HF digital but have been using packet on VHF and UHF.
I'm currently trying out Ham Radio Deluxe (will also be using hamscope).
rgds to all,
ZL2UQU
Hello Tony,
RR for all.
If you have some spare time, some modes would be interesting to be tested
(with Multipsk):
- PSK10,
- PSKAM10,
- ARQ FAE in ALE400 (simply with Unproto APRS frames, as the ARQ memory
can be used only when connected),
- ALE AMD, DTM and DBM (DBM is the best ALE
Off list. Don't want to spill gasoline on the fire.
Does your Signalink use a COM port at all?
My interface is homebrew, and uses one COM port to derive PTT from.
Packet is tolerant of losing part of the flag bits, maybe pactor too,
but AMTOR does not tolerate delays at all. It has been years
Or the protocol implementers need to recognize the need to generate a tone
to trigger the VOX. This would be analogous to the delay they provide for
transmitter keying.
- 73 -
Rud Merriam K5RUD
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
http://TheHamNetwork.net
-Original Message-
From:
I agree with Simon. The questions is HOW MUCH will it cost ?
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Simon Brown (KNS) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I really hope the code or at least a DLL is made available. Anything to get
rid of PACTOR III has my vote (I do not like the licencing issues
Licensing helps pay for all that RD (research and development) that
could very well run into the millions. doing otherwise would not be good
for any business.
At 12:37 PM 8/26/2008, you wrote:
I really hope the code or at least a DLL is made available. Anything to get
rid of PACTOR III has my
Patrick,
If you have some spare time, some modes would be interesting to be tested
(with Multipsk): PSK10, PSKAM10
No problem. I'll send the results in a day or two.
Tony, K2MO
Hello Tony,
RR for all.
If you have some spare time, some modes would be interesting to be tested
(with
ARRL article:
New HF Digital Protocol to Debut at DCC
WINMOR, an HF digital protocol designed for use with the Winlink 2000
network, will be unveiled at the upcoming ARRL/TAPR Digital
Communications Conference in Chicago, September 26-28.
[see screen shot]
Recollection is that the SignalLink has its own internal VOX circuit, so can
be independent of the VOX settings of the rig - except if the user makes the
mistake of turning VOX on in their rig, and the rig has a longer delay time
than the SignalLink does - which is likely.
Either way, I cringed
If WINMOR includes a descendant of SCAMP's busy frequency detector, this is
great news.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jon
Maguire
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:47 PM
To:
If the protocol is used on ham frequencies it must be documented. I think
for this mode a number of people would raise a stink if it is not documented
sufficiently to implement.
- 73 -
Rud Merriam K5RUD
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
http://TheHamNetwork.net
-Original Message-
IMHO, it is ridiculous to suggest that
the protocol implementers should change
the protocol to add overhead to accept
cheapo bogus hardware. In many cases, the
excellent worldwide standards have already
been set, and the proliferation of
sub-standard interfaces on the market is
not going
How does one hook up a PK232 to the laptop by USB and to the txcvr
without disconnecting the Soundcard interface (SL/USB)?
And, what software is used for Pactor I ? I am using MixW for all
other modes.
I just cannot get the assembly relationship of these 4 items in my
mind without
Bluntly, you are ignoring the reality of trends in computer hardware.
Further, my suggestion does not impact any protocol. The protocols require
no changes.
What could be changed is the way a protocol __implementation__ signals that
it ready to transmit. A simple check box on the screen that
34 matches
Mail list logo
