Hi Buddy, Although I would agree that part of the attraction of new modes is the novelty of operating them, most of us try out the new modes is to see how well they actually perform under real world conditions and find out which ones we prefer for operation. Of course, this assumes there is someone else out there who also prefers that given mode that you can talk to:) We all know how simulated computer testing has compared to actual HF testing when you actually get the modes on the air. I have found that only a few modes are really all that robust (which is my main interest area) but others may find other preferences such as the best speed, ease of use, minimal latency, etc.
Of all the digital modes I have ever worked, AMTOR seemed like about the worst. But it was a breakthrough product at the time considering it was the first amateur ARQ mode. It did have the requirement of relatively expensive hardware, very significant TX/RX switching at several times per second which many rigs at the time had difficulty with, falsing of characters when signals deteriorated even though it is an ARQ mode, and inability to handle weak signals. Pactor (Pactor I) was better assuming that you had the hardware, since it had slower switching speeds for the ARQ operation, was very good about preventing false characters from getting through, and seemed to work better into weaker signals. I am not sure what you mean by AMTOR and Pactor being curtailed by being cheap modes. The really low cost modes these days are the sound card modes since they do not require a lot of extra hardware other than an interface. My stuff is all homebrew. I finally built an ICOM CI-V interface last week and it works quite well for controlling the rig. Everything came out of the junk box and was built "dead bug" style, so nothing fancy. Many years ago, when I worked Ray (inventor of Clover I and II) when I had the HAL P-38 card, I found that Clover II was not very good with weak signals. As much as I liked the concept of Clover II, (especially the pseudo duplex feel), it really could not deliver the weak signal performance of Olivia or MFSK16 of today, and although you would get a connection, and you would have some data being transferred for the overhead bytes, very little chat mode data would get through. Very frustrating considering the cost of the stuff then. The HAL P-38 board was defective in terms of handling Pactor I and HAL would not stand behind their product. Very disappointing. It was not until sound card modes came along that I had a renewed interest in digital operation. We still do not have a good MS Windows ARQ mode for sound cards, although the Linux PSKmail may have some utility. I expect this to change in the next few years, but I know it is a challenge for the few who can actually do this kind of programming. Clearly, pipelined ARQ is the way to go at this time for computer based sound card modes if you want an ARQ mode. The main issue being enough speed when you have good conditions, but yet the ability to throttle back and forth to meet the ionospheric conditions of the moment. Linked modes are wonderful for BBS type connections and for connections where you need to have totally accurate data transmission. They are perhaps not quite as useful for casual contacts and obviously not for net type operations. 73, Rick, KV9U F.R. Ashley wrote: > > > > John, > > > > Is the reason for wanting to operate AMTOR just for the novelty of an > > old mode? I could understand using it if it was possible to do it as a > > sound card mode at a level comparable to hardware modems. > > Is the reason for operating Olivia, Contesta, Domino, MT-63, etc, for > the > novelty of operating yet another new mode? > > > > When Pactor came into use in the late 1980's, AMTOR use was drastically > > curtailed since Pactor was a much better mode in terms of weak signal > > and not falsing characters. Then when the sound card modes came into use > > in the late 1990's, it seemed like Pactor use was curtailed for casual > > contacts since the sound card modes were able to work well into the > > noise, similar to (and sometimes even better than) CW which made it > > possible to have keyboard chats even under some difficult condx. > > No, Pactor and Amtor were "curtailed" because they were either totally > free > or very cheap at the most. I always thought the "linked modes" were > a lot > of fun, especially Clover. > > 73 have fun, > Buddy WB4M > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > Other areas of interest: > > The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ > DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy > discussion) > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > * Visit your group "digitalradio > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio>" on the web. > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.22/238 - Release Date: 1/23/2006 > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
