For me personally MultiPSK allows me to enjoy ham radio my way. I like to experiment and be on the edge of new digimode technology and concepts. The learning curve keeps my mind sharp. I can also talk to Patrick as a fellow amateur and suggest things and he takes the time and courtesy to address every point I have ever put to him. Some of my ideas end up in MultiPSK too.
I have a registered version of MultiPSK and it was well worth the money. Fantastic deal really if you consider what I ended up with in the 3+ years I have been using it. But I do admit I am still a dyed-in-the-wool CW guy and love nothing more than to turn off the computers (including the old Pentium 200 running DOS) and use a straight key with my QRP radios to my homemade dipoles. This, just like mucking around with MultiPSK, feels like real radio to me. 73, Sholto KE7HPV. Tooner wrote: > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Sholto Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> MultiPSK has a lot more in it than just the ALE Frank. > > That's cool, and I can appreciate that. I've played with most of the > common digital modes software and have to say MultiPSK has a lot of > 'meat' to it. However, as a casual HF digital modes user, and my > particular setup, MultiPSK doesn't do anything more for me than what > I'm using. > >> ... rather than wasting it on making the program look like something > Microsoft developed. > > True, but there's something to be said about having a clean layout. > > Here's a screenshot of what I get to stare at for hours on end: > http://evokefrank.googlepages.com/psk31qso > > Notice the full screen waterfall (with spectrum analysis), the quick > access to other components of a QSO like instant logging, and the > ability to separate the program windows for optimal layouts. There's > plenty more, but that can be discovered (detailed signal analysis, > etc.) by the more industrious. Not that this is a feature comparison, > as much as a visual representation. > > If a user unfamiliar with either program compared the two, which do > you think would be more appealing? The difference in 'abilities' is > minor for all most the most active hams. Maybe even then. > > Also, if one wants the full features of MultiPSK (like the spectrum > analyzer or oscilloscope) you'll have to fork up $45.00). > >> It's kinda like homebrewing a qrp radio... > > True, as the creator of the QRP rig. As a hand-me-down it might not > hold the same feelings. > > I think it's more like the hard-core DOS or CW guys that refuse > to let go of to what they're accustomed. Technology requires that > one adapts often and adapts quickly. There are always some drawback > to letting go of what worked for so long, but the benefits usually > (or eventually) outweigh the disadvantages. Digital TV isn't as good > as analog, but now I have 400 channels of junk instead of six! 8-) > >> Who cares what it looks like it's how well it does the job > > There's a lot to be said for looks and ease-of-use! I'd much rather > have the best of both worlds > > Meanwhile, what 'job' does MultiPSK do for you personally? Or, if > someone else wants to pipe in with their answer. > > This shouldn't turn into a Fords-vs-Chevys battle, but I am interested > in the exchange of opinions and information. I reserve the right to > adapt and change my mind with new information! ;) > > > 73. Frank K2NCC > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/radiointerference/ > >
