--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Again, may I inject my 2 cents worth. > > SCS says that Pactor III is 4 times faster than Pactor II and the code would indicate such. Thus the raw channel throughput IS faster and the BER should be better. But as far as performance goes at varying SNRs will make a difference in throughput. > > At a -5 dB SNR on the KC7WW channel simulator KN6KB measured the throughput of Pactor I/II/II as about the same. At a + 10 dB SNR, the maximum throughput of Pactor I was measured as ~ 100 NetBytes/minute. Pactor II measures as ~3000 NetBytes/minute and Pactor III measures as ~11,000 NetBytes/minute....almost 4 times that of Pactor II. > > 73, > > Walt/K5YFW
Hi Walt, Thanks for reply. As I understand it if I need the speed it is a very good idea to upgrade to PACTOR III. I have PACTOR I and II at the moment and I am very happy with it. If the measurements are also true in real conditions too, then perhaps it is a good idea to upgrade to PACTOR III since when conditions are good the 4 times increase is great and one would hold an HF channel busy for shorter periods. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
