Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE400 - Narrow band ALE mode now available
Brian, It depends upon what you, or the average ham, are looking for. If you want to do contesting, and if the inertia stays with RTTY, then that is what will remain as a popular mode. A couple of decades ago, many of us found RTTY to be quite interesting and even built TU's to get on HF. Then along came the boxed hardware/firmware ARQ modes of Amtor and then Pactor and Clover II and moved the bar. This made it possible for nearly 100% data transmission accuracy for the first time on amateur radio. While you would not use these connected modes for contesting, due to the slow exchange, they worked well for messaging and casual contacts. These modes were fairly expensive and not widely adopted, but they were a niche interest, no different than other niche interests in our amazingly broad hobby. More recently, the sound card modes caused the next big change in digital radio communications. In terms of sensitivity, RTTY is more limited. It can certainly go below zero dB S/N, but some of the newer digital modes can go far below that. So where you would get no communication at all with RTTY, you would have solid print with say, PSK31 or MFSK16. The extra baggage of interleaving, coding, redundancy, etc., allow for much improved robustness, far beyond what RTTY can do. Now we have the next big change which is sound card ARQ technology. This was first implemented with SCAMP about three years ago but abandoned by the Winlink 2000 developer. Not long ago, one ham was able to develop the PAX mode and then the PAX2 mode which gave us an inkling of what is possible with sound card and digital ARQ. That same ham has been able to use an older technology, using the 8FSK125 waveform from ALE and adapt it for ARQ with the full ASCII character set and make it available in a multimode software program at no cost. Then he was able to go even farther and develop an 8FSK50 mode (ALE 400) that is much narrower, but is also much more sensitive and robust and is more appropriate in the text digital portions of the ham bands. It sounds as if you are not very supportive of, or even interested in emergency communications, however, there are many of us who find that part of ham radio to be the most interesting and we are always on the look out for modes and equipment that are inexpensive and therefore would be used by other hams and allow us to provide better communications than we have thus far been able to do. You are right that we do need to focus on a common denominator for emergency communications. We continue to do this through tactical HF and VHF voice which is an absolute must. But some believe we can and should do more than the minimum and thus we look to new technologies to do things that we could not do before. RTTY is definitely not one of those technologies, but ARQ sound card modes can be. There are so many new modes and technologies competing at the same time (and likely more to come) that it will take some years for radio amateurs to sift and winnow and find those that have the right mix of cost, adoption, and use. But I think it is fair to say that it is also the most exciting time for the digital modes and related technologies since I was first licensed in 1963. 73, Rick, KV9U Brian A wrote: > As one who uses digital only to > communicate and DX, I'm not sure what all this buys me-- or the > average ham. > > For starters: > 1) Using a 200 Hz filter instead of 400 or 500 Hz filter gives a 3db > S/N ratio improvment-- PSK or RTTY. It's guaranteed. > 2) There are actually many people to talk to. > 3) 100% copy is not needed in most QSO's. If someone's rig displays > on the screen as a TS-851 instead of a TS850, it really doesn't > matter. Similarly with eyeball QSO's with someone, nobody "copies" > all words 100%. Let's face it, even with a few errors stuff relayed > by ham radio is miles ahead in accuracy compared to what comes out > from the mass media. > 4) One can alraady work stations down to the noise floor. Actually, > I've had many RTTY contacts below the noise floor by augmenting the > print with aural copy of calls/reports. > > In other words, all the extra baggage (bandwidth) is generally just > extra weight with no robust benefit. Sure some selected applications > may need it. Until we find a way to access extra frequency blocks in > some parallel universe, narrower is better. > > Unfortunately, a lot (but not all) of the hype about "emergency" > communications is just a smoke screen to forward particular personal > agendas. If ham radio existed to keep the price of pork high, you'd > have people saying their invention does that too. > > It is interesting to note that so much of this stuff is hyped as THE > ANSWER to emergency communications. I see the same claim by the AMSAT > people and many other groups for their modes (e.g. D*). Of course > each isn't. Each is one of many possibilities. The more obsure you > make the mode, the fewer p
Re: [digitalradio] An observation
Hello Phil, It's not the normal working. There must be something not nominal. I will send you a test version directly to your mail address for looking at your sound card configuration. Note: for Multipsk issue, it's better to put the information in the MultipskYahoo group. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Phil Cooper To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 7:41 PM Subject: [digitalradio] An observation Hello Patrick and the group, I have just installed the latest version of MultiPSK, and I have found something odd. I have two soundcards in my shack PC - one is the Soundblaster 16, which I use for radio work, and the other is the on-board AC97, which gets used for Windows sounds. In the set-up (CONFIG) panel, I had the INPUT set as the SB16, and in the OUTPUT, the line SAME CARD AS INPUT was selected. However, this gave me NO power output at all, but when I selected the SB16, all worked OK. It would appear that if you select the SAME CARD AS INPUT, you do not get any output power at all. You have to select the correct card. This is just an observation, and may help others with two soundcards. Very best 73 Phil GU0SUP
[digitalradio] An observation
Hello Patrick and the group, I have just installed the latest version of MultiPSK, and I have found something odd. I have two soundcards in my shack PC - one is the Soundblaster 16, which I use for radio work, and the other is the on-board AC97, which gets used for Windows sounds. In the set-up (CONFIG) panel, I had the INPUT set as the SB16, and in the OUTPUT, the line SAME CARD AS INPUT was selected. However, this gave me NO power output at all, but when I selected the SB16, all worked OK. It would appear that if you select the SAME CARD AS INPUT, you do not get any output power at all. You have to select the correct card. This is just an observation, and may help others with two soundcards. Very best 73 Phil GU0SUP
[digitalradio] Re: ALE400 - Narrow band ALE mode now available
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Brian A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1) Using a 200 Hz filter instead of 400 or 500 Hz filter gives a 3db > S/N ratio improvment-- PSK or RTTY. It's guaranteed. It is not. Using narrower filter will reduce total noise and out of channel QRM, lowering dynamic range requirements for MF, AF and A/D stages. If the chain has enough dynamic range, it does not matter, which filter you use. Each software PSK31 decoder contains narrow DSP filter just after A/D What really matters is S/N after this digital filter, which is independent of MF filter bandwidth. > In other words, all the extra baggage (bandwidth) is generally just > extra weight with no robust benefit. There are physical laws telling that one needs less energy to transport the same information, if he increases channel bandwidth. 73, Vojtech OK1IAK
Re: [digitalradio] Test in ALE400
TKS John for the info. So I'll CQ today in ALE400 ARQ FAE at 18h30 UTC on 14074 KHz USB (AF at 1625 Hz). 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: John Bradley To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 4:24 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Test in ALE400 For your info, Patrick, 20M doesn't open until 1400-1500Z reaching a peak around 1900-2000Z Consistently hear Txema, EA2AFR around 1900Z here in central North America John VE5MU From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Lindecker Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 4:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Test in ALE400 Hello all, I propose a test in 14074 KHz USB on the XCVR (AF more or less 1625 Hz) to-morrow saturday at 11h00 UTC. I will call CQ in ARQ FAE. PSE, don't forget to push the "RS ID detection" button. See the form "Non selective QSO in ARQ FAE" in the document "ALE_and_ALE400_easy_with_Multipsk.doc". 73 Patrick
[digitalradio] Chirp DXng ?
Is anyone here using Chirpview and successfully decoding signals? I see some good DX spotted by others using this signal detection method. Does the timing require us to use GPS? -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
RE: [digitalradio] Test in ALE400
For your info, Patrick, 20M doesn't open until 1400-1500Z reaching a peak around 1900-2000Z Consistently hear Txema, EA2AFR around 1900Z here in central North America John VE5MU From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Lindecker Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 4:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Test in ALE400 Hello all, I propose a test in 14074 KHz USB on the XCVR (AF more or less 1625 Hz) to-morrow saturday at 11h00 UTC. I will call CQ in ARQ FAE. PSE, don't forget to push the "RS ID detection" button. See the form "Non selective QSO in ARQ FAE" in the document "ALE_and_ALE400_easy_with_Multipsk.doc". 73 Patrick
[digitalradio] Re: ALE400 - Narrow band ALE mode now available
Patrick, I applaud all the experimenters out there trying to push the envelope. Meeting personal goals is a really healthy part of the hobby. It doesn't really matter if that goal become an integral part of ham radio or not. Experimention for its own sake is good. Also, thanks for the info. As one who uses digital only to communicate and DX, I'm not sure what all this buys me-- or the average ham. For starters: 1) Using a 200 Hz filter instead of 400 or 500 Hz filter gives a 3db S/N ratio improvment-- PSK or RTTY. It's guaranteed. 2) There are actually many people to talk to. 3) 100% copy is not needed in most QSO's. If someone's rig displays on the screen as a TS-851 instead of a TS850, it really doesn't matter. Similarly with eyeball QSO's with someone, nobody "copies" all words 100%. Let's face it, even with a few errors stuff relayed by ham radio is miles ahead in accuracy compared to what comes out from the mass media. 4) One can alraady work stations down to the noise floor. Actually, I've had many RTTY contacts below the noise floor by augmenting the print with aural copy of calls/reports. In other words, all the extra baggage (bandwidth) is generally just extra weight with no robust benefit. Sure some selected applications may need it. Until we find a way to access extra frequency blocks in some parallel universe, narrower is better. Unfortunately, a lot (but not all) of the hype about "emergency" communications is just a smoke screen to forward particular personal agendas. If ham radio existed to keep the price of pork high, you'd have people saying their invention does that too. It is interesting to note that so much of this stuff is hyped as THE ANSWER to emergency communications. I see the same claim by the AMSAT people and many other groups for their modes (e.g. D*). Of course each isn't. Each is one of many possibilities. The more obsure you make the mode, the fewer people will be proficient at its use. The smaller the pool of emergency repsonders we would have. Hype isn't the answer to expanding the pool. It's got to be accepted by a wide swath of users. It has to "age" for many years in the pot of real experience. Instead we're seeing the "digital flavor of the week". I guess after 40 years of hype for various hame radio adgendas, I've grown tired of hearing them, become a skeptic and rather cynical of "new and improved". How about a shift in paradigm? Look around and see what modes most people use and adopt that? It doesn't have to be just digital! Wouldn't that provide the largest possible pool of responders and equipment? Realize that our contribuition is for the window of time between time zero of an event until when the official channels get running. One is dealing with maximizing the probability of having trained ham radio personnel and equipment actually at or near a particular location. It seems that big numbers matter. Interesting comment about the usage of digital freq's there. The PSK area of the digital 20M band is absolutely wall to wall with stations over here. 40M is similarly crowded especially at night with PSK and RTTY. I can't imagine trying to use a wide IF filter on 40M for any digital mode. 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Lindecker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello Brian and all, > > I don't think there is to compare RTTY with ALE400. The objectives are really different and there is nothing common. ALE and ALE400 permits a rich system of communications with different possibilities (see my paper "ALE and ALE400 easy"). Without speaking of PC ALE and Mars ALE which offer really a lot of interesting possibilities. > > Neither ALE nor ALE400 have for objectives to replace RTTY. The huge advantage of RTTY is to be simple and universal, but that's all. > RTTY technology is old. His performance is very poor. The bandwidth is not optimized (for optimized RTTY, choose RTTY with 23 Hz of shift). However, it matches very well quick QSO in contest. > > Necessarily, modern modes will need more bandwidth because: > * you need to code your data (to finally gain in the minimum S/N), > * more bandwidth permits a diversity in frequency which helps to make the transmission robust (in general all modern modes as MFSK16, Olivia, ALE have a diversity in time and in frequency). > > About the bands crowded. For this side of the ocean, the digital bands don't seem very crowded except during contests. > It seems there are widely enough room for 400 Hz bandwidth transmissions. > > 73 > Patrick > > > > > - Original Message - > From: Brian A > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 1:29 PM > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ALE400 - Narrow band ALE mode now available > > > I'm not trying to be a pain in the butt, honest. > > If one put ALE400 and RTTY side by side for the average ham ALE-400 > would be a hard sell. Same speed in twice the bandwi
