I too would like to see this and I think that I have asked this same question in the past but the only hams who can do this are those who have the SCS modems, so it is a very small number.
The main limitation of the RFSM modems seems to be when the signals are weaker than around +5 or 10 above zero dB SNR. Then they can not provide throughput since they do not implement the slower and more robust speeds of the MIL-STD-188-110 standard. I am assuming that they have not added the robust STANAG modes but have not heard that they have done further development for that purpose. Pactor 2 and 3 are able to work very much deeper into the noise and may even be able to compete well with the most robust soundcard modes under difficult conditions. The reason I say may, is because we don't really know, since there have not be tests like Tony has been doing with the sound card modes that compare throughput with varying amounts of Doppler and multipath. Since Pactor 2 and 3 use PSK type modes, they may not be all that robust against certain kinds of conditions with high levels of ISI. My suspicion is that the operator would never know, especially if they are trying to connect with an automated station. There are likely times that they would not connect even though they might hear each other. But when signals are quite strong, even with some ISI/Doppler, etc., the RFSM modems should do well based upon the experiences of other operators mentioned in the past day or so. My tests have not been so favorable, but the signals were more typical of HF where you are just at phone quality communications, but not really all that strong either. 73, Rick, KV9U kf4wbs wrote: > CAN YOU COMPARE RFSM 8000 TO PACTOR III UNDER SIMILAR CONDITIONS ? > > >
