w6ids wrote: <snip>
> I'm sorry, but I have never understood WHY the mode got dropped just > because PSK came alive. I see no reason why it can't be as fun to > use as legacy RTTY. I'm probably "odd man out" but frankly, after > some trial and error testing, I have little interest in MT63, Olivia, Throb, > Feld, most of the modes in Patrick's MultiPSK, and the like. You may call that "fashion", as it happens with clothing, etc. I believe that people felt lonely and went looking for others, and being the majority using the newer cheaper way, the old way became less and less popular (or fashionable, as you may like). I had a clash with a younger local ham in a contest team asking "what the **** I was using that I did not copy anybody quick enough". He was using MixW and I was using my PTC-II in PSK31. I told him to keep operating if he felt he could do better, I was going QRT. Nowadays, I use MultiPSK a lot. Olivia is real good, the best I have tried so far, besides WSJT, which is meant for EXTREME QSOS, not for chatting or file transfers. Working digimodes with PC has only required to BUILD an interface, just two transformers, an optocoupler and a red LED. > I DO like PACTOR, along with DIGI pix and file transfers, DIGI voice, > SSTV, RTTY, PSK and it's variants, etc. I know that my PK232 can't > work the new modes that have come along but I think "so what?" FWIW, it as a good packet and RTTY demodulator, and a mailbox. Does not require a PC to stay in watch. I have never quite understood AEA going into bankrupcy "because of the Internet".... > I remember many enjoyable contacts using my PK232 with really > good copy. OK, so it might not be as "fast" as PSK but most hams > can't type fast anyway. I type 75 wpm myself but find it not to be an > advantage. The important point for me is that I had a $300 box that > worked just fine and gave me some interesting operations. Yes, I > do know that 'puters can do wonders with DSP and such. However, > look at how many hams still use legacy PCs for their station use, > yet (if stories are true) they had no compunction in trashing fully > functional boxes simply because THEY chose to stop using them > like sheep in a flock. That didn't happen with RTTY and it's still > a relatively popular "niche" mode. It is simple, and syncs quick with a good TU. I built my own quite elaborate TU back in 1998 and it worked very well with the available MSDOS software. It worked, in fact, better than one of the best modem chips available then, the AM7910, and up to par with PK-232's and KAM's. But the PTC-II can be used in several ways, even as a programmable "dumb" modem, and also works very well. My TU was not programmable, was a pure hardware project. > Heck, I could have incorporated a T/R function, etc into the PK rather > than springing for a RIGblaster, for heaven's sake. DUH! I have build a few interfaces, one for CWType and versions of the one I am using now. I have left CW aside lately, so I am not sure if CWType can be substituted, but it has a configurable character table, which is important for my language, which are not used in the Morse character set. I still keep my AccuKeyer > It seems like Hams were too quick to chuck $300 or ?? out-of-pocket > TNCs away to deliberately make them obsolete for interest's sake, not > because of the box as such. That's like throwing a Collins or Drake or > Hallicrafters unit in the trash just because it's not quite up to par with > the expensive state-of-the-art, mostly foreign produced, whistle 'n bells > toys sold today. > > Personally, I don't care about PTC II, myself. I can't afford the box > anyway, yet I see a value for the mode. Ergo, at the least I can have a > PACTOR-type ability with the PK232. It DID work before and there's no > reason why that box can't provide service today. I was lucky that "Santa" was so nice....otherwise, I would not have it, either. > I've read where the thinking is that most hams won't bother with the > PACTOR I if only because of little desire to buy an "expensive" outboard > TNC. What about the hams who never threw away their original TNC, > the one sitting in the closet per se? It takes little cost to put them back > on line, yet they sit, even for lack of use for RTTY at least. Again, I do > know it won't measure up to the SCS units but so what? I have a > Collins KWM-2A ensemble, Drake ensemble, and an IC-746. They do > not come up to the standards of the more expensive products available > today but.....so what? They work and they're fun to use. Besides, I > don't owe any money on them either <GRIN>. I could use Pactor 1 ARQ with TERMAN93. The only STRICT requirement was to have an accurate 14.318 MHz dot clock. > I dunno, IMOH I just think we've misplaced some of our valuable neurons > along the way due to shallow and simplistic thinking. Sometimes, rational beings should ask themselves if it is worthwhile to follow the flock... > Well, I didn't intend this to be a diatribe. I'm probably beating the > subject into the ground with no possibility of success in a turnaround. > Anyway, I appreciated your comments, the message was a good read. > Howard W6IDS > Richmond, IN 73, Jose, CO2JA __________________________________________ Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu
