Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
I don't want to belabor this too much. I wrote a volume about it to my Director - never heard a single word back from anyone. Just let it be known that if an EMT ever said "I'm not going to treat anyone if I can't treat everyone!" he would be fired on the spot. The ARC didn't refuse to set up shelters even though they couldn't take care of everyone. That sounds pretty unfair to the ones they couldn't take care of! That alone should tell you that their logic was faulty. They applied one set of rules to the amateur service handling H&W traffic and another set of rules to themselves concerning provision of help to the evacuees. Since MOST of the evacuees were housed in shelters run by the ARC, it is no wonder that no H&W traffic came out of the area. The hams that lived in the area were busy with logistical and tactical communications for the agencies. The ARC wouldn't let out-of-area hams come in to offer to handle H&W. I still say it is the ARRL's fault for putting such a low priority on H&W traffic over the past twenty years - as is well documented in the MOU's they have negotiated. If the ARRL would put as much emphasis on handling H&W traffic and on developing systems using digimodes to handle the H&W traffic as they do on developing parallel backup links for common carrier infrastructure, the situation would be different. tim ab0wr On Monday 09 January 2006 19:59, KV9U wrote: > Tim, > > While I agree with much of what you say, I did not get the same > impression from the QST comments about not providing H&W traffic. > > My understanding was that this was a ARC decision so that it would be > more "fair" for everyone since not all shelters had equivalent radio > communications available. By denying everyone the service, no one had a > more favorable situation. > > Personally, I can not understand their logic which seems convoluted. I > have discussed some of this with at least one ARRL staff member who said > they were very surprised that almost no NTS traffic came out of Katrina > and they did not know what to make of it. I know they are very concerned > about this. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/ Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
Tim, While I agree with much of what you say, I did not get the same impression from the QST comments about not providing H&W traffic. My understanding was that this was a ARC decision so that it would be more "fair" for everyone since not all shelters had equivalent radio communications available. By denying everyone the service, no one had a more favorable situation. Personally, I can not understand their logic which seems convoluted. I have discussed some of this with at least one ARRL staff member who said they were very surprised that almost no NTS traffic came out of Katrina and they did not know what to make of it. I know they are very concerned about this. 73, Rick, KV9U Tim Gorman wrote: > > The ARRL folks should not be shocked at what has happened. When they > negotiate > agreements with other agencies (e.g. the American Red Cross) that prevent > amateurs from collecting outgoing message traffic at emergency > shelters, what > do they expect? > > The ARRL admitted in one of the latest QST's (Nov I think) that they > AGREED > with the Red Cross decision during Katrina to not let hams collect > traffic in > Red Cross shelters destined for loved ones from evacuees. > > As for routine traffic, there are lots of messages that have a reasonable > delivery time that can be handled by the NTS. The ARRL needs to get > off their > duff and start being cheerleaders for this type of operation instead > of being > only cheerleaders for handling emergency agency operational and > logistical > traffic. > > I disagree that the only way this will work for digital is if it can > be done > on a store-and-forward basis. Your prediction is probably true as long > as the > ARRL and others continue to cast routine traffic as being unnecessary > and a > waste of time to handle. > > Especially in emergency situations, it is being able to get the message > delivered that is important, not that it be done within 10 minutes. > People > waited days to find out about relatives in Katrina. Outgoing welfare > traffic > from that area could have been sent and delivered by hams much quicker > than > that. > > Even routine birthday notices, christmas greetings, and just plain > hello's > don't require delivery within 10 minutes. And for someone that doesn't > remember an email address or even a telephone number, amateur radio still > provides a reasonable alternative. > > psk nets can operate at least as efficiently as the old RTTY nets used > to. I > suspect they can operate better since it is easier to manage > frequencies and > to dispatch sender/receiver pairs off-frequency than during the old RTTY > nets. > > The real kicker will be the number of people that are willing to > dedicate the > time and effort to make such a system work. Even when traffic nets > were valid > alternatives to the telephone system (e.g. late 50's to early 70's), the > percentage of hams that were dedicated to traffic handling, even on a > part-time basis, was small. Since digital operation is only about 10% > of the > total operations today, my guess is that the number of hams willing to > make a > digital system work will be insignificant. > > I suspect that if you did a survey on this list you would get no more > than 1 > or 2 people interested in doing routine traffic handling no matter how > important the traffic is. > > Tim ab0wr > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/ Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital
Amateur Operators add no value to emergency communications, unless we are able to provide a service where others cannot. I see this as being the focus of any discussion concerning "use radio" or "use Sprint". Why in the world would any Incident Commander hand write a NTS Radiogram for "one of those Ham guys" when his wireless notebook has a fine internet connection? Please explain. I can't even imagine how many broadband engineers work 40+ hours a week maintaining, load-testing, expanding, improving and upgrading their systems around the US... so that I.C. and everyone else involved can have some level of assurance that commercial communications will be operational when needed. Now for the rest of the story... Commercial communications is down. Now what? What level of assurance do you think that I.C. has in his radio team that they can provide ANY sort of communications into and out of the disaster area? Does he have any evidence that the Hams have been: "maintaining, load-testing, expanding, improving and upgrading their systems around the US"? What? You mean they don't use their Emergency Backup System? They have to quickly build it and test it with other hams hundreds of miles away? What a joke. That "Emergency Backup System" is 95% dependant upon the very system that they are suppose to be backing up! Moral of the story: Any backup system (spare tire, UPS, emergency generator, Ham Radio) *MUST* be fully operational for the intended use, when its use is required. In other words, USE RADIO for radio traffic. Hams just may become valuable again some day. My pactor station has been doing a fine job of handling NTS into and out of the Pacific Northwest for the past 10+ years. Only because I use it. ... Duane N7QDN Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/ Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
Danny, You are correct on what you say. I would be willing to bet right now that the local governments do not have any idea of what we can do for them. I belong to a local ARES club here and I know for a fact that even our EMA office does not know what we can provide for them locally. There is a very large nuclear power plant located in my county and we meet annually with the local, state and federal EMA and go thru a practice with all the state and surrounding counties. We knew as much as 30 minutes before the time they were going to the next phase of the drill. The local people could not figure out how we knew this. We were communicating with the main check point on HF about 150 miles away. We also provide communications for a few local civic groups and they are amazed at how much time and steps it saved them. There is another thing that happens frequently in my area of the country. When we are under a tornado warning the news media will often broadcast that a tornado was spotted by a ham radio operator. Being a ham radio operator does not qualify you to be a storm spotter. Most of our club members are however. JoeW4JSI Age is mind over matterIf you don't mind, it does not matter - Original Message - From: Danny Douglas To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 4:52 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital I really wonder if we are thinking in the same terms anymore. It seems tome that hams need to fill in the space where there exists no othercommunications, much as we have done in the past. Local emergencies such astornados, floods, landslides etc, knock out local communications from thedanger zone, to the rest of the world. Hams quickly fill in by going downtot he rescue squad, firestations, sheriffs offices etc. and are sent out tolocalities where the phones have gone out, or the local communications relaysites have failed. We can report that the river is up 12 feet over floodstate, or that a fire is out of control in so and so woods, and that isneeded by the local authorities so that can take immediate actions. That iswhat happened 9-11 and for many other localized emergencies. We didnt needto go into the red cross system, or to pass initial word about thesituation: after all CNN, ABC,CBS, and too many others to mention, werethere and carried it to the whole world live. We WERE needed though, tosimply get word between emergency services, as their own communications wentdown with the buildings, as did a ham radio repeater or more. We cetainlydidnt need to jump in and send cross country messages on that one.When Katrina hit, widespread communications outages occured. Localcommunications were completely destroyed, and again hams were in there tohelp between those services headquaarters and their outlaying stations ormobile units. Sadly, from many things I have read, the hams were notuniversally used as the local authorities had no idea how to use them, whereto send them, or what they could do. It behoovess amateur radio to workmore closely with local authorities now - before the next such emergency -and let them see us in action, and what we can do for them.If the internet is down, as during a widespread involvement such as Katrina,then yes we can help with long range commmunications, but it should only beto to a point of input to commerical or government link. We do NOT need toreinvent coast to coast communications, Indeed we have neither thefinancial or political backing to do so, nor do we have the incentive sincewe already have the internet to talk with each other. I have done morecommunicating in the past 10 years on the internet than in the 50 yearsprevious to that, 30 of them on ham radio. I sit here in Virginia at 5:42PM, EST writing this. You each will get it within minutes, no matter whereyou are in the world, as long as you have your computer up and connected tothe net. That is unheard of in decades past. I worked in governmenttelecommunications for 29 years and we would have loved to have a 400KBpscircuit like I have here at the house, let alone the T1s or even faster thatare available to some of you townies. Even the 56K dial up is so muchfaster than the two 300 baud rtty circuits I worked with for years. We donot now, nor shall we ever catch up with speed of todays or tomorrowscommercial or govenment links. Its idiotic to think we can, or should.Lets get ham radio back to the basics - provide what we can - where we can -with decent speeds and accuracy, But lets not attempt to be the next MCI.If governments want to buy and set up networks and have we hams come in andoperate them, as trained communicators, that is great, but most of us cannotafford the equipment or networking they will require. Meantime, I will se
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
I really wonder if we are thinking in the same terms anymore. It seems to me that hams need to fill in the space where there exists no other communications, much as we have done in the past. Local emergencies such as tornados, floods, landslides etc, knock out local communications from the danger zone, to the rest of the world. Hams quickly fill in by going down tot he rescue squad, firestations, sheriffs offices etc. and are sent out to localities where the phones have gone out, or the local communications relay sites have failed. We can report that the river is up 12 feet over flood state, or that a fire is out of control in so and so woods, and that is needed by the local authorities so that can take immediate actions. That is what happened 9-11 and for many other localized emergencies. We didnt need to go into the red cross system, or to pass initial word about the situation: after all CNN, ABC,CBS, and too many others to mention, were there and carried it to the whole world live. We WERE needed though, to simply get word between emergency services, as their own communications went down with the buildings, as did a ham radio repeater or more. We cetainly didnt need to jump in and send cross country messages on that one. When Katrina hit, widespread communications outages occured. Local communications were completely destroyed, and again hams were in there to help between those services headquaarters and their outlaying stations or mobile units. Sadly, from many things I have read, the hams were not universally used as the local authorities had no idea how to use them, where to send them, or what they could do. It behoovess amateur radio to work more closely with local authorities now - before the next such emergency - and let them see us in action, and what we can do for them. If the internet is down, as during a widespread involvement such as Katrina, then yes we can help with long range commmunications, but it should only be to to a point of input to commerical or government link. We do NOT need to reinvent coast to coast communications, Indeed we have neither the financial or political backing to do so, nor do we have the incentive since we already have the internet to talk with each other. I have done more communicating in the past 10 years on the internet than in the 50 years previous to that, 30 of them on ham radio. I sit here in Virginia at 5:42 PM, EST writing this. You each will get it within minutes, no matter where you are in the world, as long as you have your computer up and connected to the net. That is unheard of in decades past. I worked in government telecommunications for 29 years and we would have loved to have a 400KBps circuit like I have here at the house, let alone the T1s or even faster that are available to some of you townies. Even the 56K dial up is so much faster than the two 300 baud rtty circuits I worked with for years. We do not now, nor shall we ever catch up with speed of todays or tomorrows commercial or govenment links. Its idiotic to think we can, or should. Lets get ham radio back to the basics - provide what we can - where we can - with decent speeds and accuracy, But lets not attempt to be the next MCI. If governments want to buy and set up networks and have we hams come in and operate them, as trained communicators, that is great, but most of us cannot afford the equipment or networking they will require. Meantime, I will see you on CW , Digital modes or even SSB, plus if we have more to say, here we are - on email. Danny T - Original Message - From: "kd4e" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 5:43 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital > It seems to me that if the E-mail system is involved at > all then Ham Radio is mostly irrelevant. Such messages > would likely to be rare except out of devastated areas > and even then folks are already deploying digital relay > stations to quick-up critical Internet access. > > The need also presumes the absence of cellphone and > landline communications. > > It seems to me that Ham Radio needs to offer a system > parallel to the Internet that delivers messages to people > without access to E-mail or where significant Internet > outages make quick restoration improbable (what that > means in terms of a threshold of downtime and of > geographical distribution is a future discussion). > > We need a digital message forwarding system, that preferably > includes the capacity to optionally imbed small images, and > that has built in tracking and redundancy so that we always > know where the message is and if a station or a group of > stations are down there is always a way around. > > It needs to be frequency and mode diversified so that the > best and fastest frequency and mode are automatically > selected (which may require the dropping of an attached > image to use a more simple digital mode in favor of getting > at least the text messa
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
The ARRL folks should not be shocked at what has happened. When they negotiate agreements with other agencies (e.g. the American Red Cross) that prevent amateurs from collecting outgoing message traffic at emergency shelters, what do they expect? The ARRL admitted in one of the latest QST's (Nov I think) that they AGREED with the Red Cross decision during Katrina to not let hams collect traffic in Red Cross shelters destined for loved ones from evacuees. As for routine traffic, there are lots of messages that have a reasonable delivery time that can be handled by the NTS. The ARRL needs to get off their duff and start being cheerleaders for this type of operation instead of being only cheerleaders for handling emergency agency operational and logistical traffic. I disagree that the only way this will work for digital is if it can be done on a store-and-forward basis. Your prediction is probably true as long as the ARRL and others continue to cast routine traffic as being unnecessary and a waste of time to handle. Especially in emergency situations, it is being able to get the message delivered that is important, not that it be done within 10 minutes. People waited days to find out about relatives in Katrina. Outgoing welfare traffic from that area could have been sent and delivered by hams much quicker than that. Even routine birthday notices, christmas greetings, and just plain hello's don't require delivery within 10 minutes. And for someone that doesn't remember an email address or even a telephone number, amateur radio still provides a reasonable alternative. psk nets can operate at least as efficiently as the old RTTY nets used to. I suspect they can operate better since it is easier to manage frequencies and to dispatch sender/receiver pairs off-frequency than during the old RTTY nets. The real kicker will be the number of people that are willing to dedicate the time and effort to make such a system work. Even when traffic nets were valid alternatives to the telephone system (e.g. late 50's to early 70's), the percentage of hams that were dedicated to traffic handling, even on a part-time basis, was small. Since digital operation is only about 10% of the total operations today, my guess is that the number of hams willing to make a digital system work will be insignificant. I suspect that if you did a survey on this list you would get no more than 1 or 2 people interested in doing routine traffic handling no matter how important the traffic is. Tim ab0wr On Monday 09 January 2006 15:17, williams wrote: (excerpts follow:) > > Because the need for NTS traffic became less and less about 20 years > ago, I finally decided that it was not worth the effort required and > only occasionally participated. Today the NTS traffic handles even less > traffic and we have seen that even during severe emergencies in recent > time, has almost no traffic flowing anymore. I know that even the ARRL > folks are shocked at what has happened. > > > The public now expects messages to be delivered in a reasonable time. I > think 24 hours is about the maximum and really that is longer than most > expectations. Digital could have had a really huge impact on traffic > handling, but the interest is just not there. > > The only possible way that digital traffic can succeed is if it can work > for most hams with easy to use access and be accessible at all times so > you don't have to show up for a net. I realize that the downside of all > this is the loss of camaraderie which I believe is one of the main glues > holding the current CW and voice systems together for now. And traffic > that comes in with an e-mail address needs to be dispatched immediately. > Ideally, we would also have better ways to insure delivery. > > Will this ever happen? I used to think so, but have increasing doubts. > We may see a different type of activity though with the newer digital > technologies such as JNOS2, Winlink 2000, and now PSKmail where messages > can be delivered via the net ... if you have an e-mail address for the > recipient. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/ Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
It seems to me that if the E-mail system is involved at
all then Ham Radio is mostly irrelevant. Such messages
would likely to be rare except out of devastated areas
and even then folks are already deploying digital relay
stations to quick-up critical Internet access.
The need also presumes the absence of cellphone and
landline communications.
It seems to me that Ham Radio needs to offer a system
parallel to the Internet that delivers messages to people
without access to E-mail or where significant Internet
outages make quick restoration improbable (what that
means in terms of a threshold of downtime and of
geographical distribution is a future discussion).
We need a digital message forwarding system, that preferably
includes the capacity to optionally imbed small images, and
that has built in tracking and redundancy so that we always
know where the message is and if a station or a group of
stations are down there is always a way around.
It needs to be frequency and mode diversified so that the
best and fastest frequency and mode are automatically
selected (which may require the dropping of an attached
image to use a more simple digital mode in favor of getting
at least the text message through).
It needs to be operating system independent (MS Windows,
Linux, or Apple Mac) and require no costly and/or proprietary
hardware or software.
We have an example of cooperative distributed computing here:
http://folding.stanford.edu/ so citizens (Hams) may be expected
to figure out a way to do this!
Just some thoughts ... 73, doc kd4e
> The public now expects messages to be delivered in a reasonable time. I
> think 24 hours is about the maximum and really that is longer than most
> expectations. Digital could have had a really huge impact on traffic
> handling, but the interest is just not there.
>
> The only possible way that digital traffic can succeed is if it can work
> for most hams with easy to use access and be accessible at all times so
> you don't have to show up for a net. I realize that the downside of all
> this is the loss of camaraderie which I believe is one of the main glues
> holding the current CW and voice systems together for now. And traffic
> that comes in with an e-mail address needs to be dispatched immediately.
> Ideally, we would also have better ways to insure delivery.
>
> Will this ever happen? I used to think so, but have increasing doubts.
> We may see a different type of activity though with the newer digital
> technologies such as JNOS2, Winlink 2000, and now PSKmail where messages
> can be delivered via the net ... if you have an e-mail address for the
> recipient.
>
> 73, Rick, KV9U
--
~~
A blessed New Year to all!
Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e
30-70% Off Christian Books, CD's, DVD's, etc.
http://edenacres.bibleseven.com/b2i/b2i-index.html
|_|___|_|
| | & | |
{|
/\ {|
/ \ {|
/\{|
/ @ \ {|
| |~_||
| -| ||
\ # http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
KD4E =
West Central Florida
/\ /\
?(~~~{ @ @ } Sent from
( * Puppy Linux
() http://www.goosee.com/puppy
~
/ / / /
~~~
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
Historically, most the NTS traffic was done via CW. It took more than a generation to get acceptance of BPL (Brass Pounder's League) for non CW voice modes. RTTY digital was used some, but I would have to say that it was always a niche area. For those of us who used to be NCS (Net Control Stations) in the NTS, it became a huge burden to tie up a particular time and day to meet your obligation. Some do it even more than one day a week but may be retired and do it for self fulfillment as a public service. Because the need for NTS traffic became less and less about 20 years ago, I finally decided that it was not worth the effort required and only occasionally participated. Today the NTS traffic handles even less traffic and we have seen that even during severe emergencies in recent time, has almost no traffic flowing anymore. I know that even the ARRL folks are shocked at what has happened. In 25 years, the only really important message I sent was in the last few months to assist the person who wanted to send the message to Alaska after they got hit by a tornado. They did not have an e-mail address so there were few other ways to get a message there other than NTS. I used to handle some moderately important MARS messages a few decades ago, but they were so incompetent in getting messages, names, phone numbers through without garbling that I backed away from this activity when I found tragically flawed people making exceptionally destructive decisions, e.g., hold traffic for days and days if it did not go through "their" circuits. I knew they were on borrowed time and would eventually self destruct. And that is pretty much what has happened. The public now expects messages to be delivered in a reasonable time. I think 24 hours is about the maximum and really that is longer than most expectations. Digital could have had a really huge impact on traffic handling, but the interest is just not there. The only possible way that digital traffic can succeed is if it can work for most hams with easy to use access and be accessible at all times so you don't have to show up for a net. I realize that the downside of all this is the loss of camaraderie which I believe is one of the main glues holding the current CW and voice systems together for now. And traffic that comes in with an e-mail address needs to be dispatched immediately. Ideally, we would also have better ways to insure delivery. Will this ever happen? I used to think so, but have increasing doubts. We may see a different type of activity though with the newer digital technologies such as JNOS2, Winlink 2000, and now PSKmail where messages can be delivered via the net ... if you have an e-mail address for the recipient. 73, Rick, KV9U Tim Gorman wrote: > 9RN used to have a ham active on the NTS-D until he became sick in > 2004. He > passed away early in 2005 and no one has picked it up since then. > > At this point in time I am picking up the 9RN traffic off the NTS-D and > passing it into the 9RN via the CW NTS nets, at least as much as I can. I > generally screen out the broadcast messages because there just isn't > enough > time to pass them all. > > I'm with you. I would have hoped that some younger hams would have > stepped in > to pick this up, especially since it can be done via digital. > > There seems to be a lot of interest in doing the glamour work of handling > emergency agency traffic but little interest in doing the grunt work of > handling traffic for the public. > > tim ab0wr Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/ Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] MultiPSK problem
Thank you very much, Patrick. This was the "problem." It is so simple ... when you know how:) 73, Rick, KV9U Patrick Lindecker wrote: > Hello Rick, > > You must have selected the "Software mixer" option of the mixer menu > on the > Configuration screen. In that case, the sound card mixer is managed > directly > by the program, this to adjust the optimum level (Automatic Gain > Control). > The problem is the diversity of sound card mixers which don't allow > operation in all sound cards mixers. > > 73 > Patrick > For question about Multipsk, PSE contact the Multipsk Yahoo group > > > - Original Message - > From: "williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 3:56 AM > Subject: [digitalradio] MultiPSK problem > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/ Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] MultiPSK problem
Hello Rick, You must have selected the "Software mixer" option of the mixer menu on the Configuration screen. In that case, the sound card mixer is managed directly by the program, this to adjust the optimum level (Automatic Gain Control). The problem is the diversity of sound card mixers which don't allow operation in all sound cards mixers. 73 Patrick For question about Multipsk, PSE contact the Multipsk Yahoo group - Original Message - From: "williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 3:56 AM Subject: [digitalradio] MultiPSK problem >I have been using Multipsk for a while now and recently was using it on > a new computer and have found that whenever I switch from one mode to > another mode, or go from tx to rx, the sound card changes the slider to > the maximum on both the Line In and the Wave output. This of course > overdrives the rig and for a while I had difficulty figuring out just > what was going on. > > I tried it with Digipan and the problem does not show up and everything > seems to work correctly. > > Does anyone else have such a problem? I just uploaded version 3.12 and > it is still doing the same thing. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/ > > Other areas of interest: > > The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ > DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy > discussion) > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/ Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
