> 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 73, Walt/K5YFW
Do I correctly read this to mean that at high-noise low-signal strength conditions Pactor I, II, & III are equal? Does that mean that the non-proprietary Pactor I that runs on a sound card is just as good as the proprietary and unaccountable Pactor II & III under rough conditions? -- Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Projects: http://ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com Personal: http://bibleseven.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
