[digitalradio] Re: Digital voice now
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KT2Q [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All: I'm QRV digtial voice on 7176.0 USB. Any takers? It's 0400z. Tony KT2Q Sorry I missed you Tony. Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation
The only other known use for voice-bandwidth data modes is for image transfers, which can send an SSTV-size picture, with a very low error rate, in 30 seconds, using a bandwidth of 2400 Hz. the same image, at the same low error rate, can be sent in less than 2 minutes, using a bandwidth under 500 Hz. SSTV has traditionally uesed 2.4khz BW since the analog days. There will be quite some resistance from sstv operators to change this to 500hz and extend the waiting time from 1 min average to more than five min. (30 sec to 2 min numbers are incorrect) Everyone actually operating sstv will confirm ! Digital SSTV concentrates on one frequency per band. That is 2.4khz per band. There are no full automatic stations for digi-sstv, there is NO software to allow full auto operation. THERE ARE NO DIGI-SSTV ROBOTS ! Usually the digi-sstv arq operations are operator-initiated and NOT automatic. You can't compare that to pactor, you are behaving incorrectly to the bunch of digi-sstv operators. In other words, just by accepting to wait longer for an image to arrive, as is the current practice in SSTV, it is not necessary to use a voice-bandwidth transmission mode. WRONG. 5 min for a single picture will kill the mode. Recommendation: Voice-bandwidth data modes SHOULD NOT be introduced on the HF bands. Automatic (Robot operated) Voice-bandwidth data modes SHOULD NOT be introduced on the HF bands. 73, Cesco, HB9TLK
[digitalradio] Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)
It seems that one of the effects of ARRL's clarification of new modifications to FCC proposal is to tear down the famous 300 symbols per second wall. In place of that old wall, a new wall would be built: A new 3kHz bandwidth limit for RTTY/data signals. Prior to this, there was no bandwidth limit on RTTY/data signals. The Technology Jail structure remains, but at least it is being upgraded :) Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)
This will be the end of ham radio . Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
Re: [digitalradio] Digital voice now
If you went LSB, wouldn't that keep General Class licensees from straying below the 40 meter cutoff frequency of 7.175? UH, I think I said that right. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: John Becker To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 10:48 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Digital voice now Tony this is to low in the phone band for a lot of us. At 10:48 PM 3/22/2007, you wrote: All: I'm QRV digtial voice on 7176.0 USB. Any takers? It's 0400z.
[digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This will be the end of ham radio . Hi Bruce, I heard that in 1967. Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation
I am somewhat relieved, if still confused about the language. Also, I am certainly glad I never took up the law as a profession - the language used is designed to confuse everyone else, and probably half the lawyers. I am dead set against ANY automatic mode use of our bands during normal operational times. Having such, for emergency use, I do understand and could condone. The problem with that, of course, is the necessity to exercise the system so it, and the operators, will be ready in case of a real emergency situation. Being that these systems are becoming a quasi-arm of the government I believe they should be assigned non-amateur frequencies, but near the present ham assignments so that the antennas and propagation will not be such that they cannot be quickly moved onto the ham bands during a valid emergency situation. We simply do not have the spectrum to allow such modes on to our limited assignments in the hf bands, and still allow for normal amateur use of QSOs, contests, etc. Semi-automatic is just one step better than fully-automatic operation. Neither one will provide compliance of the rule to insure the frequencies are clear, before both ends transmit. Thanks for the information. The ARRL would be well advised to insure such information is thoroughly propagated not only to members, but to the general ham population as well. Printing information in QST is simply not enough. They also need a way to speak in words that the general population would understand and to translate the legalese to plain old English. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 10:40 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation Danny, I think this LONG e-mail from Jim will clear this up 73, John K8OCL
Re: [digitalradio] Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)
Bruce, Do you ALWAYS over-react, of is that just for this reflector? ;o) John Original Message Follows From: bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:17:09 -0700 (PDT) This will be the end of ham radio . Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
Re: [digitalradio] Digital voice now
Tony this is to low in the phone band for a lot of us. Understand John -- just picked that frequency at radom. It was BCI-free at that time ; ). Send an e-mail next time and we'll QSY. Tony KT2Q
Re: [digitalradio] Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)
Do you ever want to see a vote of all members of the arrl? or better yet all hams as to if they want this? You know damn well if wide band gets going all other modes will be squeezed out ... why do you think the RTTY/CW guys are livid right now ? how many ARRL members will be left after this mess you are proposing get going ? hopefully none . They GAVE you 222 and up but untill you OWN all the bands your kind will not be happy It's the truth and you know it . --- John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce, Do you ALWAYS over-react, of is that just for this reflector? ;o) John Original Message Follows From: bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:17:09 -0700 (PDT) This will be the end of ham radio . Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
Re: [digitalradio] Re: [WinDRM] Re: Digital voice now
I was able to listen for a little bit when several stations were running WinDRM tests in the past week, especially Jason, N1SU, and another station who I heard fairly well on DV, but K0PFX was only copyable when on analog SSB since he was too weak to decode. The sample you have sounds pretty to me. None of the DV audio quality is really all that hi fi, but it does get rid of the noise if the signal strength is sufficient to allow it to work. I did not find any information on DRMDV on Jason's site, which surprised me as he usually seems to have all the latest info on DV stuff. Is there a web site for DRMDV? 73, Rick, KV9U KT2Q wrote: Sergio, To KT2Q: What do you mean for DRMDV? 73, EA3DU The DRMDV software is a variant of WinDRM. It has the ability to work with a lower S/N than WinDRM. The trade-off is that the voice quality is somewhat less. The MELP 1400bps mode sounds pretty good if you ask me... Have a listen to the attached clip. 73 Tony KT2Q
[digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation
1. The folks at Booth, Freret, Imlay Tepper are unpaid volunteers? 2. One way to avoid such errors is to openly seeking broad review beforehand; defects are less expensive (time, $) to correct sooner than later. The ARRL does a lot of things well, and deserve the appropriate accolades. However, their effort to modify frequency allocations has been a study in serial incompetence. They are proposing to allow unattended stations without busy frequency detectors to operate more broadly, they initiated an action that jammed CW and Data into the bottom 100 KHz of 80m, and who knows what we'll get from this latest round of semantic follies. The ARRL represents the US Amateur Radio Community to the FCC. We should be setting high expectations and holding them accountable when they fall short, not lowering the bar and making excuses. If there's a faint glow of hope in that material, it Dave K1ZZ's acknowledgement of broad opposition by the amateur radio community to the ARRL' RM-11306 proposal. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave, Ease up a bit, please. These are just like us, and they make mistakes once in a while. Also, Directors are an unpaid, volunteer position, so it takes a lot of dedication to the hobby. I don't have it in me. Do you? 73, John K8OCL
Re: [digitalradio] Re: DVDRM KV9U
Hi Tony, I got the impression in talking to the WinDRM users on 7173 SSTV group, that it worked with lower than +10 dB S/N. Maybe around 7 dB? The older programs used the RDFT protocol which did require around +10, and that is at least part of the reason for so rapidly abandoning RDFT based software and moving toward the OFDM type as found in WinDRM. I am not sure how RDFT works either, maybe it has a similar modulation scheme to OFDM? The audio quality is that internet sound that we used to get with low quality dial up speeds and is not unlike some cell phone connections. I am assuming this has a lot to do with the number of dropped packets. 73, Rick, KV9U KT2Q wrote: Rick, WinDRM does need a fairly good SNR. The threshold seems to be around 10db. Of course it's much easier to achieve that on the upper HF bands so it's usually not an issue there. On 40 meters and below it seems that DVDRM mode does a better job coping with QRN. It's not exactly hi-fi as you say, but it's interesting to note that the decoded audio has a range of about 4khz (see attached). The lows dip way down and the high-end is slightly above 4000 hertz. I guess you could say audio response is pretty good when you consider the RF bandwidth is the same as used for SSB! You'd need 4khz to duplicate this with analog. Mel and I have fooled around with EQ a bit and you can enhance the DV audio to sound terrific, but the problem is getting software EQ's to work simultaniously with WinDRM. An outboard unit would work fine. Check with Mel about the DVDRM mode info... 73, Tony KT2Q
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation
Dave, 1. Not the attorney, silly! I had to pay my attorney when I was forced to take legal action against other Radio Amateurs, but it was my unpaid volunteer efforts he was defending. Are we in an adult conversation here, or what? 2. The Board (remember, those unpaid volunteers?) did seek broad input. But you know most Hams, they don't respond until the UFO lands in their backyard (HI). If you don't like their actions, then vote them out of office! That is, of course, assuming you are an ARRL member, otherwise I wouldn't bother having this discussion. I think my Director (Jim, GLD) did a great job of damage control, so he he continues to have my full support. See ya on MT-63? 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:22:11 - 1. The folks at Booth, Freret, Imlay Tepper are unpaid volunteers? 2. One way to avoid such errors is to openly seeking broad review beforehand; defects are less expensive (time, $) to correct sooner than later. The ARRL does a lot of things well, and deserve the appropriate accolades. However, their effort to modify frequency allocations has been a study in serial incompetence. They are proposing to allow unattended stations without busy frequency detectors to operate more broadly, they initiated an action that jammed CW and Data into the bottom 100 KHz of 80m, and who knows what we'll get from this latest round of semantic follies. The ARRL represents the US Amateur Radio Community to the FCC. We should be setting high expectations and holding them accountable when they fall short, not lowering the bar and making excuses. If there's a faint glow of hope in that material, it Dave K1ZZ's acknowledgement of broad opposition by the amateur radio community to the ARRL' RM-11306 proposal. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave, Ease up a bit, please. These are just like us, and they make mistakes once in a while. Also, Directors are an unpaid, volunteer position, so it takes a lot of dedication to the hobby. I don't have it in me. Do you? 73, John K8OCL
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation
Does the ARRL post, and seek comment, when they plan on seeking new rules? I assume that posting their proposals for a 30 day comment period would help spot heir errors. Andy K3UK On 3/23/07, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave, 1. Not the attorney, silly! I had to pay my attorney when I was forced to take legal action against other Radio Amateurs, but it was my unpaid volunteer efforts he was defending. Are we in an adult conversation here, or what? 2. The Board (remember, those unpaid volunteers?) did seek broad input. But you know most Hams, they don't respond until the UFO lands in their backyard (HI). If you don't like their actions, then vote them out of office! That is, of course, assuming you are an ARRL member, otherwise I wouldn't bother having this discussion. I think my Director (Jim, GLD) did a great job of damage control, so he he continues to have my full support. See ya on MT-63? 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] aa6yq%40ambersoft.com Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:22:11 - 1. The folks at Booth, Freret, Imlay Tepper are unpaid volunteers? 2. One way to avoid such errors is to openly seeking broad review beforehand; defects are less expensive (time, $) to correct sooner than later. The ARRL does a lot of things well, and deserve the appropriate accolades. However, their effort to modify frequency allocations has been a study in serial incompetence. They are proposing to allow unattended stations without busy frequency detectors to operate more broadly, they initiated an action that jammed CW and Data into the bottom 100 KHz of 80m, and who knows what we'll get from this latest round of semantic follies. The ARRL represents the US Amateur Radio Community to the FCC. We should be setting high expectations and holding them accountable when they fall short, not lowering the bar and making excuses. If there's a faint glow of hope in that material, it Dave K1ZZ's acknowledgement of broad opposition by the amateur radio community to the ARRL' RM-11306 proposal. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave, Ease up a bit, please. These are just like us, and they make mistakes once in a while. Also, Directors are an unpaid, volunteer position, so it takes a lot of dedication to the hobby. I don't have it in me. Do you? 73, John K8OCL -- Andy K3UK Skype Me : callto://andyobrien73 www.obriensweb.com
[digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Not the attorney, silly! I had to pay my attorney when I was forced to take legal action against other Radio Amateurs, but it was my unpaid volunteer efforts he was defending. Are we in an adult conversation here, or what? It was the attorney that made the error, John. From the document you forwarded: It is apparent that this inadvertent error, which is exclusively that of undersigned counsel for ARRL, has resulted in some serious misunderstandings, which are regrettable. 2. The Board (remember, those unpaid volunteers?) did seek broad input. But you know most Hams, they don't respond until the UFO lands in their backyard (HI). Really? Where exactly what this broad input sought? I checked the Amateur Radio News section of the ARRL's web site going all the way back to 2007-01-01 and could find no mention of a proposed FCC submission that amateurs could review. The ARRL did float its draft bandwidth petition before submitting it to the FCC, but then ignored all of the negative reaction to the proposal's expansion of semi-automatic operation and provided no response whatsoever to the issues raised. If you don't like their actions, then vote them out of office! That is, of course, assuming you are an ARRL member, otherwise I wouldn't bother having this discussion. If I don't like the ARRL's actions, highlighting the shortcomings of those actions to many ARRL members is a far more effective way to accomplish positive change than by casting a single vote. Yes, I am an ARRL member. I think my Director (Jim, GLD) did a great job of damage control, so he continues to have my full support. Perhaps we'd be better off with directors who wouldn't need to display their skills at damage control quite so frequently. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: DVDRM KV9U
Rick... I got the impression in talking to the WinDRM users on 7173 SSTV group, that it worked with lower than +10 dB S/N. Maybe around 7 dB? For what it's worth, I did some path simulator tests with WinDRM and the SNR decode threshold seemed to be around 8db. It was about 3 to 4db lower with DVDRM. These were AGWN tests without any simulated ionospheric disturbance added in. Keep in mind that the modes might start to decode at these levels, but being right at the threshold, any QSB or selective fading would cause the signal to drop out. I think 10db is a more realistic figure for reliable copy. maybe it has a similar modulation scheme to OFDM? I think it does. The audio quality is that internet sound Yes, it does sound digitized to some extent, but I think the near zero noise floor makes the user forget about the robot-like characteristics! It's fun to use... Tony KT2Q - Original Message - From: kv9u [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 5:51 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: DVDRM KV9U Hi Tony, I got the impression in talking to the WinDRM users on 7173 SSTV group, that it worked with lower than +10 dB S/N. Maybe around 7 dB? The older programs used the RDFT protocol which did require around +10, and that is at least part of the reason for so rapidly abandoning RDFT based software and moving toward the OFDM type as found in WinDRM. I am not sure how RDFT works either, maybe it has a similar modulation scheme to OFDM? The audio quality is that internet sound that we used to get with low quality dial up speeds and is not unlike some cell phone connections. I am assuming this has a lot to do with the number of dropped packets. 73, Rick, KV9U KT2Q wrote: Rick, WinDRM does need a fairly good SNR. The threshold seems to be around 10db. Of course it's much easier to achieve that on the upper HF bands so it's usually not an issue there. On 40 meters and below it seems that DVDRM mode does a better job coping with QRN. It's not exactly hi-fi as you say, but it's interesting to note that the decoded audio has a range of about 4khz (see attached). The lows dip way down and the high-end is slightly above 4000 hertz. I guess you could say audio response is pretty good when you consider the RF bandwidth is the same as used for SSB! You'd need 4khz to duplicate this with analog. Mel and I have fooled around with EQ a bit and you can enhance the DV audio to sound terrific, but the problem is getting software EQ's to work simultaniously with WinDRM. An outboard unit would work fine. Check with Mel about the DVDRM mode info... 73, Tony KT2Q
