Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
To be able to provide the remarkable number of modes in MultiPSK *and* have a UI conforming to the Windows usability guidelines is verging on the impossible, especially once you factor in supporting users and maintaining websites. IMO the user community should be very grateful to Patrick for the work he does no matter how appealing the UI may be. To provide the ultimate software would require a team of three or four programmers; herding cats would be easier. Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: Tooner [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Kevin O'Rorke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Those who complain about the UI really need to go away and use another Program. Sorry Kevin, in this country, our opinions are equal. In theory at least. Those who complain.. don't just get up and leave we bitch about it until someone fixes it!
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
To do everything users want could easily take several years at 60 hours a week plus the associated costs which are not inconsiderable. Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: Simon Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To provide the ultimate software would require a team of three or four programmers; herding cats would be easier.
[digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Simon Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMO the user community should be very grateful to Patrick No doubt. There's no complaint in providing the service, as each programmer has given many of us new things to try, and the ability to work with what we previously might not have been able. I understand the specifications, as also found in Sholto's excellent post of Here's a rundown What I haven't seen a reply that answers the original question of Any big fans of MULTIPSK that might like offer why they use it?. If it's the unique modes it offers, what modes have you successfully used? If it's the layout, what do you like about it compared to others? Again, this wasn't about Fords-vs-Chevys. We all have our tastes. I was trying to find out what others like. I hope I didn't offend anyone in this pursuit of curiosity. It wasn't meant to devalue as it was to raise awareness. If only my own. 73. Frank K2NCC
[digitalradio] Re: MULTIPSK FAE 400 (formally New release of...)
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The main reason for using Multipsk for me now has been the superb FAE 400 mode. Thanks for that Rick. I've never use FAE 400 (or any other ARQ, ALE type modes.) I haven't found much local interest in experimenting with the connection-type modes, or anything people can't just jump right into without some study. I'll look more into FAE400 and ALE, which I'm sorely inexperienced. Is FAE400 good for HF as well as VHF/UHF? I'll do so more reading and probably find that out, but in case you know any more off the top. Like calling frequency, if any. etc. Now if we could just get more hams to use it. I can usually get Wisconsin from here pretty solid into Oregon if you want to try something later. Frank, K2NCC
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
User Interface, also known as GUI (Graphical User Interface) when compared with an old VT-100 type terminal interface or even a teletype for those of a 'certain age'. Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: John Bradley qu'est-ce que UI?
RE: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
qu'est-ce que UI? John VE5MU From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Brown Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 2:00 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK To be able to provide the remarkable number of modes in MultiPSK *and* have a UI conforming to the Windows usability guidelines is verging on the impossible, especially once you factor in supporting users and maintaining websites. IMO the user community should be very grateful to Patrick for the work he does no matter how appealing the UI may be. To provide the ultimate software would require a team of three or four programmers; herding cats would be easier. Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: Tooner [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:defaultprofile%40gmail.com --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com , Kevin O'Rorke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Those who complain about the UI really need to go away and use another Program. Sorry Kevin, in this country, our opinions are equal. In theory at least. Those who complain.. don't just get up and leave we bitch about it until someone fixes it!
RE: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
ahh I am of that certain age but UI could also apply to me as (u)n(i)tiated hi hi tnx Simon John VE5MU User Interface, also known as GUI (Graphical User Interface) when compared with an old VT-100 type terminal interface or even a teletype for those of a 'certain age'. Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: John Bradley mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] qu'est-ce que UI?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
Tooner wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... but what it does and how it does. ... And certainly MultiPSK does its stuff WELL ... as a peek at its specs will show you. How about telling us what that 'stuff' is, as you are more familiar than I? Specifics would be nice. It is not the first time that Vista FAILS with an otherwise working software. True, but the applications need to keep up with the operating system, not the other-way-around. That's one of the reasons Windows has so many issues, the demand for backwards compatibility. If Microsoft would just start over, from scratch, and offer no recourse for older apps, then we'd have an O/S closer to what a modern PC can really do. Yes, the 640 kB of RAM original sin, the 528 MB HD limit...etc. 20 years ago, that would be the kiss-of-death for a company. But as ingrained as Windows O/S is, I imagine it would hardly dent their pocketbook. Anyway, we'll be booting to the Internet before long and what operating system your computer will run will be a moot point. It depends on where you are. I have no Internet at home, and we have a bastillized proxy at work with just the imprescindible ports open. Here at home, it is much easier to sync my PC using Clock tuned to CHU, thanks to Patrick, who accepted my suggestion and it is a superb way to sync my PC to UTC. CHU has an almost bulletproof protocol in its time packets, far better than WWV, and still better than WWVB here. Of course, that is my specific situation, and every case may be different. I used DOS until 1998, then jumped to Linux in a very resource deprived 486, and later began using Win98 and Linux in a dual boot Pentium. I still keep many of my old DOS programs, and quiet a few still work under XP or DOSEMU on Linux. Here, it is not easy to keep up with hardware, as you may already know. There, is so far, no NEED for Vista, as XP or other OS's may do well too. Windows has had a bad influence on the Linux world. What was an extremely light OS has become quite heavy too when using a GUI, specially with KDE. Meanwhile, I can still do many things in seconds that takes even a skilled operator quite a bit longer in a Linux box. (For instance, try setting up dual monitors in Linux!) That is another specific situation... Yes, Windows isn't the most stable operating system. It is however, the most usable for the masses. No matter how skilled you are at your preferred O/S, you'll more likely sit down to a Windows PC vs any other flavor. Except maybe at your personal station/s. Like everything else in this world, everything has its pros and its cons...I will not hesitate to use Linux for a server...forget about service packs, and antivirus. To me, those are the two most burdensome activities to keep a server going. And it seems, so far, that it is preferable to migrate a server to another machine rather than upgrading a live server. Generally, a good server dies when its hardware dies. I write from a dual boot machine. I used to run a packet BBS, and Linux is better for that, no doubt. It is also easier for remote administration, on a bandwidth restricted link. Anyway, that's not really the point here. I'm just trying to nail someone down with specifics of what MultiPSK offers that would make someone reconsider what they're currently using. Well, one of the most useful features of MultiPSK is its panoramic decoders. I have a vague memory that Digipan does it too, but I have not used Digipan in ages... Usually I would like to have some more free time, and I work a lot from home...it is easier than the hectic environment in my University. I can be working in a new presentation with MultiPSK working in the background and check periodically if a friend or a needed DX pops up. Again, no one has given specifics yet to what MultiPSK does better than other digital software? For the most common modes, it translates about as well as any other. What, besides the different modes available and costs, keeps one a die-hard MultiPSK fan? Well, Sholto has done an extensive description, and I use MultiPSK mostly for PSK and Olivia, and sometimes, exceptionally, use one of the not so common modes. I have used Voice ocassionally on semi local QSO's on 40 meters, and it works very well, far better print than PSK or RTTY, while being slightly faster than Olivia. (Nevertheless, I keep an old version of Mix for decoding some of the weird combinations of Olivia that Multipsk does not cover. But I have not used it recently...) I have used its oscilloscope and spectrum analyzer to capture waveforms and signals from the real life to include in my work, ocassionally. A real voice waveform is so peculiar that I like my students to take that into account when they have to deal with modulators. Or when evaluating why I had so many difficulties receiving WWV, I realized that the 100 Hz
[digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
Any big fans of MULTIPSK that might like offer why they use it? I'm guessing you're using it for the ALE applications? I have made the test of running multipsk in parallel with winpsk and other psk31 software. The programs were set up to decode the same signals on 40m. Then i did compare the decoding success. Multipsk was clearly the winner. Im a multipsk fan !
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
Hello Frank, Windows - No Disk Exception Processing Message 0xc013 Parameters Did you have this problem at the second starting? Or is it permanent each time you start it? but still kinda clunky and cluttered. You see it cluttered, I see it in perfect order. Here is the way I see things: This GUI corresponds to what I need i.e.: * not to waste time in searching the wished command or to switch of mode or sub-mode (minimum of menus, maximum of buttons, panel of modes...), * always the maximum of information directly available on the screen (many hints, contextual help with right click, QRGs, actual configuration...). 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Tooner To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 2:57 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK MultiPSK gives an error in Vista 64-bit: Windows - No Disk Exception Processing Message 0xc013 Parameters ... Cancel, Try Again, Continue Selecting either will still pull up the program. Seems to work fine. Not a biggie, but in case someone else is using the same O/S, let us know if you see anything similar. Meanwhile, it's aood program for the 'rarer' modes like PAX or CHIP, but still kinda clunky and cluttered. You can tell the same author designed the web-site. Any big fans of MULTIPSK that might like offer why they use it? I'm guessing you're using it for the ALE applications? Frank, K2NCC
[digitalradio] New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
Hello Paul, Would you please outline the best way to update Multipsk. I don't do it very often and where the files go gets confusing. For example, do After starting the program Instal: * if you have the 4.6 version, click on Updating... targetting the previous Multipsk folder, * if you have no version of Multipsk, click on Installation, * if you have an old version version of Multipsk and a Maps sub-directory to the Multipsk folder, click on Updating targetting the previous Multipsk folder. Note that you will not have the last Clock version. * if you have a very old version version of Multipsk and not the Maps sub-directoryt o the Multipsk folder, the best is to click on Installation targetting the previous Multipsk folder. original folder were it will replace everything but keep preferences? No a configuration file is created by Multipsk only if it is not detected in the current folder. However it is normal to have an information message telling you that you have an old version of Multipsk (the new information will be created and intialized to default values). PSE for questions about Multipsk, contact the Multispk Yahoo group. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Paul To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 2:05 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Lindecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK Patrick, Would you please outline the best way to update Multipsk. I don't do it very often and where the files go gets confusing. For example, do we download your file, expand it to a temporary folder, then click some setup/installer icon in the temporary folder and navigator to the original folder were it will replace everything but keep preferences? Thank you and 73, Paul
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
Hi Frank, The reason that many of us use Multipsk is because it really is the only available program of its kind. No other program has all those modes available in one program at any price. In addition, some of the modes are specific to Multipsk and not available anywhere else. So if you want to use these modes, you must use Multipsk even if there might be other things about the program that you dislike. This is particularly true of the FAE modes, the RSID system, and the constant development by Patrick. No other developer has invented so many modes or tweaked existing modes. Otherwise, it really is a Fords vs Chevy thing (as we might say here in the U.S.:) But even there, the answer is very easy as Chevy's are almost always better:) As time goes on, there will be more choices. The Ham Radio Deluxe Program, which used to be limited to a PSK31 module, now has a full blown digital add on (Digital Master 780) which is superior from an interface and operational standpoint even when compared to programs that cost money. It does seem to require some substantial computer power. The flDigi (Linux) and VBDigi (Windows) programs along with flarq to make up the NBEMS system has seen the addition of many of the most commonly used modes and I can recommend this package. If you are a DXer or contester, you may want to stay with one program and really become proficient with its use. The issue of logging is also a concern since having many different programs and combining logs is not that easy. Multipsk has another feature that provides interoperability with DXLab DX Keeper logging module, via the DXLab Commander module. For those who use the ARRL LoTW this is likely important as I am not sure how many other digital programs can do this. From a personal perspective, my long term goal is to move at least some of my computing to Linux, not so much because I like Linux, but because MS has made so many bad decisions with their current OS and the explosive situation that is going to continue happening in developing countries and other countires outside the U.S. with Linux adoption. While I have not really considered reloading the Vista OS again using the vLite program, (Vista is the easiest OS I have ever reloaded), I am impressed that some of the top programming people at Microsoft have admitted that Vista is bloated and Windows 7 is planned to have a very big change in drastically slimming down. It appears that they will ask, or are already asking programmers to think differently and use a stripped down version of the new OS. However, this new OS is not planned until 2010 so that likely really means 2015 or beyond. Because the world is moving toward free and open software, including the OS, Linux or something evolving from it is very likely in the long term. That means that if you move some of your applications to the new OS, and the programs you now use can not follow as native mode applications, you must move to new ones. That is why almost all the programs my wife and I use have moved or are moving toward open source/cross platform as much as we can. We are probably too old really to be overly concerned, but may we have another 10 or 20 years, you never know. The two stumbling blocks for me - the much better visual rendering that Vista does on my equipment, which is slightly better than XP and much better than Linux at this time. - the access to ham radio programs that are only available on MS Windows at this time. So for now I am going to primarily use the programs that have the modes I want to use, or can legally use. If they become available on Linux as a native mode someday, then that could change. At this time only Multipsk has almost all of the sound card modes in one program and that is only available on MS Windows. 73, Rick, KV9U Tooner wrote: I understand the specifications, as also found in Sholto's excellent post of Here's a rundown What I haven't seen a reply that answers the original question of Any big fans of MULTIPSK that might like offer why they use it?. If it's the unique modes it offers, what modes have you successfully used? If it's the layout, what do you like about it compared to others? Again, this wasn't about Fords-vs-Chevys. We all have our tastes. I was trying to find out what others like. I hope I didn't offend anyone in this pursuit of curiosity. It wasn't meant to devalue as it was to raise awareness. If only my own. 73. Frank K2NCC
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
Hello Frank and all, I don't think Multipsk deserves all these mails. However thanks to all who present, in a better way that I could do it, this program. 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... You are right. It is very nice and Simon is talented. But nobody oblige you to use a program. You can simply uninstall it and that's all. It reminds me this saying Vouloir le beurre, l'argent du beurre et la crémière which means to want the butter, the money of the butter and the lady who sells the butter. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Tooner To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:23 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK --- 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/
[digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Lindecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Frank, Windows - No Disk Exception Processing Message 0xc013 Parameters Did you have this problem at the second starting? Or is it permanent each time you start it? Every time I start it. f
[digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
There are bridges that allow direct logging from MixW and DM780 to DXKeeper. MultiPSK interoperates directly with DXLab without the need for a bridge application, and works with SpotCollector as well as with DXKeeper and Commander. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Frank, The reason that many of us use Multipsk is because it really is the only available program of its kind. No other program has all those modes available in one program at any price. In addition, some of the modes are specific to Multipsk and not available anywhere else. So if you want to use these modes, you must use Multipsk even if there might be other things about the program that you dislike. This is particularly true of the FAE modes, the RSID system, and the constant development by Patrick. No other developer has invented so many modes or tweaked existing modes. Otherwise, it really is a Fords vs Chevy thing (as we might say here in the U.S.:) But even there, the answer is very easy as Chevy's are almost always better:) As time goes on, there will be more choices. The Ham Radio Deluxe Program, which used to be limited to a PSK31 module, now has a full blown digital add on (Digital Master 780) which is superior from an interface and operational standpoint even when compared to programs that cost money. It does seem to require some substantial computer power. The flDigi (Linux) and VBDigi (Windows) programs along with flarq to make up the NBEMS system has seen the addition of many of the most commonly used modes and I can recommend this package. If you are a DXer or contester, you may want to stay with one program and really become proficient with its use. The issue of logging is also a concern since having many different programs and combining logs is not that easy. Multipsk has another feature that provides interoperability with DXLab DX Keeper logging module, via the DXLab Commander module. For those who use the ARRL LoTW this is likely important as I am not sure how many other digital programs can do this. From a personal perspective, my long term goal is to move at least some of my computing to Linux, not so much because I like Linux, but because MS has made so many bad decisions with their current OS and the explosive situation that is going to continue happening in developing countries and other countires outside the U.S. with Linux adoption. While I have not really considered reloading the Vista OS again using the vLite program, (Vista is the easiest OS I have ever reloaded), I am impressed that some of the top programming people at Microsoft have admitted that Vista is bloated and Windows 7 is planned to have a very big change in drastically slimming down. It appears that they will ask, or are already asking programmers to think differently and use a stripped down version of the new OS. However, this new OS is not planned until 2010 so that likely really means 2015 or beyond. Because the world is moving toward free and open software, including the OS, Linux or something evolving from it is very likely in the long term. That means that if you move some of your applications to the new OS, and the programs you now use can not follow as native mode applications, you must move to new ones. That is why almost all the programs my wife and I use have moved or are moving toward open source/cross platform as much as we can. We are probably too old really to be overly concerned, but may we have another 10 or 20 years, you never know. The two stumbling blocks for me - the much better visual rendering that Vista does on my equipment, which is slightly better than XP and much better than Linux at this time. - the access to ham radio programs that are only available on MS Windows at this time. So for now I am going to primarily use the programs that have the modes I want to use, or can legally use. If they become available on Linux as a native mode someday, then that could change. At this time only Multipsk has almost all of the sound card modes in one program and that is only available on MS Windows. 73, Rick, KV9U Tooner wrote: I understand the specifications, as also found in Sholto's excellent post of Here's a rundown What I haven't seen a reply that answers the original question of Any big fans of MULTIPSK that might like offer why they use it?. If it's the unique modes it offers, what modes have you successfully used? If it's the layout, what do you like about it compared to others? Again, this wasn't about Fords-vs-Chevys. We all have our tastes. I was trying to find out what others like. I hope I didn't offend anyone in this pursuit of curiosity. It wasn't meant to devalue as it was to raise awareness. If only my own. 73. Frank K2NCC
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
Hi Patrick I think the GUI is great . I have no trouble using it. Keep up the good work ! 73 de LA5VNA Steinar Patrick Lindecker skrev: Hello Frank and all, I don't think Multipsk deserves all these mails. However thanks to all who present, in a better way that I could do it, this program. Here's a screenshot of what I get to stare at for hours on end: http://evokefrank.googlepages.com/psk31qso 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... You are right. It is very nice and Simon is talented. But nobody oblige you to use a program. You can simply uninstall it and that's all. It reminds me this saying Vouloir le beurre, l'argent du beurre et la crémière which means to want the butter, the money of the butter and the lady who sells the butter. 73 Patrick - Original Message - *From:* Tooner mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:23 AM *Subject:* [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto: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 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/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/radiointerference/
[digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Lindecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Frank and all, I don't think Multipsk deserves all these mails. Hi Patrick, I find the GUI in MULTIPSK the best of all. It looks like a DIGITAL MODEM and I can go to any mode I want with a single click. I think this is the best GUI I have ever seen on any soundcard DIGITAL MODE program. Don't take any notice of all this whining. What really matters most is the way this program decodes the various modes. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
Hi Patrick, I agree. You do an awesome job. Thank you so much for your hard work on our behalf! 73 Al WB2JEP -- Original message -- From: Demetre Valaris [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Lindecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Frank and all, I don't think Multipsk deserves all these mails. Hi Patrick, I find the GUI in MULTIPSK the best of all. It looks like a DIGITAL MODEM and I can go to any mode I want with a single click. I think this is the best GUI I have ever seen on any soundcard DIGITAL MODE program. Don't take any notice of all this whining. What really matters most is the way this program decodes the various modes. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RFSM 8000
Thanks for your comments Dimitry as they do help with understanding your approach. One thing that I wondered about when using the program for our test was the relatively slow speed at the ~ +5 dB S/N. The 600 showed on the screen which now if I understand your comments below, the slowest bps rate for your version of the STANAG modem is 600 bps. For around a +5 dB S/N is that about right for the 600 bps rate? If the program was running at the 600 bps rate, and had a throughput of around 300 wpm, is that about what we should expect? Did you try using the other STANAG modems down to the more robust 75 bps too or did you find that impractically slow? 73, Rick, KV9U dmitry_d2d wrote: 1. A few words about OFDM and serial tone modem. Let's find out how the fight between ISI and Doppler shift takes place in these systems. OFDM uses the great number of low speed channels so the symbol duration increases. While the duration of ISI is much smaller than symbol duration everything goes well. Consequently there is an aim to increase the number of channels ad infinitum BUT at the same time natural limitation takes place. It's just a Doppler shift effect. Hence there is always a compromise between ISI and Doppler shift. Moreover we should take into consideration a big peak factor which results in non-effective usage of power of transceiver. There are methods directed at improvement of peak-factor, but the most part of them makes the system characteristics worse. In case of serial tone modulation the fight ISI with Doppler is provided with adaptive algorithms. The more effective and faster they are the larger number of Doppler and ISI the modem can manage. As for RFSM it should be mentioned that now it includes rather efficient adaptive algorithms that work properly at a speed of 600(500) up to 4800(4000) bps (wide/narrow mode). To work at a speed 6400(5333) - 8000() much more compound algorithms are needed. In particular using turbo-equalization will improve noise proof feature at all rates. Therefore OFDM and serial tone modem can be more efficient in dependence on channel statement. In my opinion serial tone modem with effective adaptive algorithms is the most effective. We'd like to mention that under certain circumstances either serial tone or OFDM modem can fail to provide connection, for example, when the Doppler shift is extremely high (polar communications). In that case one should use the methods of spectrum spread that extending the symbol in time and frequency. Unfortunately the speed would not be high in this case. So the best way out is to measure the channel characteristics and choose the speed of transmission and modulation method according to them. The full adaptation of the all characteristics is required. 2. About our users. The project RFSM-2400/8000 was initially aimed at organizations (not for HAMs)! (First version had no 0,3-2,7 band, which is adapted for HAMs). Its prime value is that high-performance algorithm is used in it. Consequently only technical specialists of organizations where data (files, mail etc.) transmission through HF is needed can estimate the program at its true worth. They need the following: high speed of connection and data transmission. They are the FIRS GROUP OF OUR USERS. For example there are organizations (our users at the moment) who even haven't looked upon HAM -modems (little speed, instability, absence of files transmission in spite of excellent chat-exchange). If you are interested in RFSM as in a program for chat- exchange (or even for file transmitting but you do not need a high speed) and runner is not important for you:. You are the SECOND GROUP OF OUR USERS. $60 may be a pretty penny for this product for you. There is also not numerous GROUP OF USERS - THE THIRD ONE The representatives of this group are specialists in HF- radiocommunications and radioamateurs at the same time who is interested in algorithms of a high efficiency - the runner of the program. May be $60 is rather expensive for them but they can trial versions for free. They communicate with us suggesting interesting and moreover useful ideas. We really appreciate their advices and suggestions. Due to the THIRD GROUP the first version of RFSM has transformed in the product adopted for HAM. 3 . There are several remarks on the open source codes. a) RFSM-2400 (and all the more RFSM-8000) is not just a dumb modem though such a rate is also possible (it was used in PSKMail). Our product is an accomplished system of communication thatprovides different types of services including receiving/transmitting e-mail on Internet. b) Speaking about
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
Frank, I will see if I can find this on a Vista computer. One other solution would be to see what happens with a test program (with a lot of flags). If you are interested, PSE send me a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Tooner To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:53 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Lindecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Frank, Windows - No Disk Exception Processing Message 0xc013 Parameters Did you have this problem at the second starting? Or is it permanent each time you start it? Every time I start it. f
[digitalradio] RFI source found - sort of
All, I was able to track down the general location of an RFI problem I've been hearing since December. It's in the vicinity of 3 new homes on a cul-de-sac not far from my QTH. I'm told the pulse noise sounds like the RFI from an invisible electric fence. At this point, it's hard to tell which home it's coming from with the HF mobile because the signal strength is overwhelming at the location. I'll have to get up close with a portable AM radio; I'll probably need some shielding around it. Wish I knew exactly what the noise was; I'd hate to 'accuse' a neighbor of causing RFI and have it turn out to be the power company. I have a recording if anyone is interested. The question is, what to do in the worse case scenerio if the home owner decides not to take action to remedy the problem? Anyone on the reflector been through this before? Apologies for the off-topic note Andy -Please reply direct... Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
Hey Patrick!! Cud u give me the URL: to download this pgm? Appreciate!! 73 Les At 02:05 PM 1/31/2008, you wrote: Frank, I will see if I can find this on a Vista computer. One other solution would be to see what happens with a test program (with a lot of flags). If you are interested, PSE send me a mail to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Tooner To: mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.comdigitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:53 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK --- In mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.comdigitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Lindecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Frank, Windows - No Disk Exception Processing Message 0xc013 Parameters Did you have this problem at the second starting? Or is it permanent each time you start it? Every time I start it. f No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.14/1247 - Release Date: 1/28/2008 10:59 AM
[digitalradio] DM780 - 90 second preview
Here's a quick-n-dirty home video of some of the features of Digital Master 780: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7731131773805023264
[digitalradio] Re: MT63 Hardware Question
- To answer that in one word, no. Ain't going to happen. The reason so so many use the sound card modes right now is because they don't have to *buy* some black box to do it. John, W0JAB Thanks John, That answer is no help. I understand the economics of it, but black boxes are more reliable than PCs. For most hobby applications it probably doesn't matter, and your point is valid. You gain nothing for nothing paid. Dave K7UXO
Re: [digitalradio] RFI source found - sort of
I think you can also go up in frequency towards the VHF frequencies as the RFI gets stronger , that will help attenuate a little. On Jan 31, 2008 5:03 PM, Rud Merriam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your ultimate recourse is to the FCC if any RFI is being generated. They will send letters advising the party to fix the problem. If the party does not respond and does not fix the problem the FCC can get serious with enforcement actions. It can be a slow but steady process with the FCC. Before reaching that point you can contact local clubs for help, or turn to the ARRL. Clubs or the local ARRL section will have RFI experts who can asses the situation and bring expert opinion to bear on the offending party. A representative with credentials from a national organizations tends to focus an offenders attention. Documenting those steps makes it easier for the FCC to escalate the issue. You can use your body as an RF attenuator. Stand with your back to the possible source with the radio held close to your chest. Turn around and note the null in the signal to get a direction fix. Then try it 25-50 feet down the street. Good luck. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 3:30 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] RFI source found - sort of All, I was able to track down the general location of an RFI problem I've been hearing since December. It's in the vicinity of 3 new homes on a cul-de-sac not far from my QTH. I'm told the pulse noise sounds like the RFI from an invisible electric fence. At this point, it's hard to tell which home it's coming from with the HF mobile because the signal strength is overwhelming at the location. I'll have to get up close with a portable AM radio; I'll probably need some shielding around it. Wish I knew exactly what the noise was; I'd hate to 'accuse' a neighbor of causing RFI and have it turn out to be the power company. I have a recording if anyone is interested. The question is, what to do in the worse case scenerio if the home owner decides not to take action to remedy the problem? Anyone on the reflector been through this before? Apologies for the off-topic note Andy -Please reply direct... Tony -K2MO Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked DRCC contest info : http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm Yahoo! Groups Links -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
Re: [digitalradio] Commercial APRS
would the following be something along those lines http://www.qualcomm.com/technology/assetmanagement/platforms/globaltracs.html?_kk=equipment%20tracking_kt=dbb97098-5e4d-4b93-95ae-42727fd9835c http://www.qualcomm.com/press/releases/2008/080110_Qualcomm_Introduces_GlobalTracs_Lite.html i work as one of the guards at a trucking outfit here in south florida, and they run something from qualcomm in the sleeper trucks, not familiar with the setup though, and the idea of commercial vehicle tracking systems is ot a new one as far as i know 73 don/kf4cup - Original Message - From: Rodney To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 6:26 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Commercial APRS Guys, I work for our local County as their Radio Tech and our Road Department would like to be able to keep tabs on some, not all, of their vehicles, especially in areas where their cell phone coverage is flaky at best. They have a UHF system located on a mountain top approximately 4250', centrally located within the County. Not having any experience with APRS, would this be a viable way to do this? I know that APRS can be monitored via the internet, but is that strictly for Amateur use, or can the software be purchased for commercial useage? Thanks! Rod KC7CJO Clackamas County Electronic Services, Radio Shop -- Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
I began using MultiPSK a few months ago when Sholto was looking for help with some propagation monitoring on 30 meters. He has a program that works in conjunction with MultiPSK to automatically post spots on http://www.projectsandparts.com/30m/. Prior to trying and registering MultiPSK I had almost always used a registered copy of MixW. The performance of MultiPSK in the modes I've tried is very good. I especially like the panoramic reception as it makes it easy to copy the mail while I'm in the shack reading or working on other projects. The user interface for MultiPSK is very busy/cluttered in my opinion. An alternative I think might work well would be a tabbed system where each mode had its own tab and you only saw controls and displays for the mode you had selected. I think this might also make new additions easier because you would add a new tab vs. deciding where to squeeze in the new mode/button/slider. My suspicion is that people new to MultiPSK may be put off because of the learning curve. There is a LOT there to figure out for a new user that has not been with it as it has evolved. Couple that with a person's natural tendency to be comfortable with the old program they used no matter what new modes and features it doesn't have and you have a powerful tool that some people will just not put forth the effort to learn. That's not a bad thing, it's just a choice they make. Remember, it's a hobby. Hobbies are supposed to be enjoyable! 73, Tim, N9PUZ Tooner wrote: I understand the specifications, as also found in Sholto's excellent post of Here's a rundown What I haven't seen a reply that answers the original question of Any big fans of MULTIPSK that might like offer why they use it?. If it's the unique modes it offers, what modes have you successfully used? If it's the layout, what do you like about it compared to others? 73. Frank K2NCC
[digitalradio] Re: Commercial APRS
check out http://www.aprs.net/vm/DOS/COMMERCL.HTM I did a google search and did not go to the site. 73 --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rodney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Guys, I work for our local County as their Radio Tech and our Road Department would like to be able to keep tabs on some, not all, of their vehicles, especially in areas where their cell phone coverage is flaky at best. They have a UHF system located on a mountain top approximately 4250', centrally located within the County. Not having any experience with APRS, would this be a viable way to do this? I know that APRS can be monitored via the internet, but is that strictly for Amateur use, or can the software be purchased for commercial useage? Thanks! Rod KC7CJO Clackamas County Electronic Services, Radio Shop - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
[digitalradio] Logging for MultiPSK and DM780
I go between MultiPSK and DM780. What is the best/easiest way to create a combined/common log? Thanks, Dave W6DLF
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
Nice post Jose. I must also add that the algorithms written by Patrick are some of the most sophisticated I have ever seen for software based audio decoding. His A1A decoder is one of the best I have ever used. -- JT Croteau, N1ESE - Manchester, NH (FN42gx) Contest Manager, TARA Skirmish
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
On Jan 31, 2008 6:59 PM, Les Warriner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Patrick!! Cud u give me the URL: to download this pgm? Appreciate!! Les, the main mirror site is Earl's, N8KBR: http://multipsk.eqth.info/index.html (click on United States Download Site #1). -- JT Croteau, N1ESE - Manchester, NH (FN42gx) Contest Manager, TARA Skirmish
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
Touche!! Patrick. I enjoy using your program. Rick W3BI - Original Message From: Patrick Lindecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 2:00:03 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK Hello Frank and all, I don't think Multipsk deserves all these mails. However thanks to all who present, in a better way that I could do it, this program. 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... You are right. It is very nice and Simon is talented. But nobody oblige you to use a program. You can simply uninstall it and that's all. It reminds me this saying Vouloir le beurre, l'argent du beurre et la crémière which means to want the butter, the money of the butter and the lady who sells the butter. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Tooner To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:23 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK --- 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/radiointer ference/ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
[digitalradio] Comaparison Table of Major Digital Mode and Logging Apps
Hi All, Am fairly new to ham radio and I read a lot about the different apps for different modes and particularly the multi-function apps like HRD and MixW (for which I have a license) and it's all pretty daunting. I'm wondering if anyone has done a comparison of features of the different offerings, perhaps a spreadsheet, either for their personal benefit or posted somewhere. I didn't find anything after a brief Google search and a search of this forum. The purpose of such a document would not be to say which is best, like a Consumer Reports rating, but simply to show which have what features so that a newcomer could decide which one(s) might best satisfy *their* needs. Certainly, such a doc would be out of date within a few weeks of release since most programs are always being upgraded, but it would be a start. I might attempt this on my own at some point but don't want to reinvent the wheel so thought I'd check here, first. 73 to all Phil AF6AV San Diego
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
Thanks Much!!! At 04:45 PM 1/31/2008, you wrote: On Jan 31, 2008 6:59 PM, Les Warriner mailto:leswa7ham%40earthlink.net[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Patrick!! Cud u give me the URL: to download this pgm? Appreciate!! Les, the main mirror site is Earl's, N8KBR: http://multipsk.eqth.info/index.htmlhttp://multipsk.eqth.info/index.html (click on United States Download Site #1). -- JT Croteau, N1ESE - Manchester, NH (FN42gx) Contest Manager, TARA Skirmish No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.14/1247 - Release Date: 1/28/2008 10:59 AM
[digitalradio] Re: Commercial APRS
Rod: Here's the flagship tracking product for truck fleets, from Qualcomm (the folks who also make the CDMA chips for your celel phone): http://www.qualcomm.com/technology/assetmanagement/platforms/omnitracs.html Phil AF6AV --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rodney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Guys, I work for our local County as their Radio Tech and our Road Department would like to be able to keep tabs on some, not all, of their vehicles, especially in areas where their cell phone coverage is flaky at best. They have a UHF system located on a mountain top approximately 4250', centrally located within the County. Not having any experience with APRS, would this be a viable way to do this? I know that APRS can be monitored via the internet, but is that strictly for Amateur use, or can the software be purchased for commercial useage? Thanks! Rod KC7CJO Clackamas County Electronic Services, Radio Shop - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
Re: [digitalradio] RFI source found - sort of
Do you have power lines running underground and a transformer box near one of the three houses? How about a watersoftner in one of the houses. Also look for INternet monitoring of electrical power loops (meters), light poles...even if they are off during the day their keep-alive/on-off circuit may be causing the problem. Walt/K5YFW Tony wrote: All, I was able to track down the general location of an RFI problem I've been hearing since December. It's in the vicinity of 3 new homes on a cul-de-sac not far from my QTH. I'm told the pulse noise sounds like the RFI from an invisible electric fence. At this point, it's hard to tell which home it's coming from with the HF mobile because the signal strength is overwhelming at the location. I'll have to get up close with a portable AM radio; I'll probably need some shielding around it. Wish I knew exactly what the noise was; I'd hate to 'accuse' a neighbor of causing RFI and have it turn out to be the power company. I have a recording if anyone is interested. The question is, what to do in the worse case scenerio if the home owner decides not to take action to remedy the problem? Anyone on the reflector been through this before? Apologies for the off-topic note Andy -Please reply direct... Tony -K2MO Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked DRCC contest info : http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm
[digitalradio] Asking questions of the FCC
Has anyone here ever received a respose from the FCC to a legal question? They might have a policy of not answering. There could be two problems. One would be that it creates a body of unpublished information that makes prosecution of offenders more difficult. The other could be that only administrative judges have the authority to answer these questions. 73, John KD6OZH
[digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Les Warriner leswa7ham@ wrote: Thanks Much!!! Wow! all these 4.7 Multipsk posts after I asked my question - and no answer. So I'll try again. Paul, I believe message #26409 answered your question? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/26409 Pardon me if I'm wrong, as it was just a quick glance. Frank, K2NCC
[digitalradio] Re: RFSM 8000
Hello Rick. As regards the speed that is slower 600 in MIL-STD 188-110A/B. There are 300, 150, 75. In my opinion speed reduction has been made nonoptimal, using dumb repetition of data in 300 and 150 is not needed. The theory of coding says that repetition is the worst way to improve noise immunity. Speed 75 based on the method of spectrum spread by orthogonal consecution by Walsh. It's rater good but this speed uses repetition as well. We consider that the speed 300, 150, 75 allows reaching better characteristics of noise immunity that the standard MIL-STD 188- 110A/B allows. Frankly speaking the standard MIL-STD 188-110A/B has been used our product to be noticed by customers. But true to say it contains nonoptimal solutions. Turning to the point of RFSM we should admit that we have mistaken making the minimal speed - 600. I hope we improve it in the near future. Dmitry.
