RE: [digitalradio] Comparing data modes
Thanks, Tony. Vista might be adding another variable to the equation. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tony Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 12:04 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Comparing data modes > What were the sampling rates used by each of those 5 applications, Tony? > 73, Dave, AA6YQ Dave, The sample rates were 11025 Hz for Mixw and IZ8BLY MT63 terminal. Looks like 8000 Hz for DM780 and Multipsk. Not sure what's going on with Fldigi. I'm using the Vista version. Tony, K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] Sound card and Vista
Bert, > I am in the market for a new laptop that will be use for ham radio > software such as PSK 31. I been told that Vista OS may not work with > the sound card programs. > KD7Jeh Bert Had some trouble with the digital voice program FDMDV. All was fine after the author modified the program for Vista. Everything else works fine. Good luck with your new machine... Tony, K2MO - Original Message - From: "kd7jeh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 10:35 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Sound card and Vista > Hello to the group, > > I am in the market for a new laptop that will be use for ham radio > software such as PSK 31. I been told that Vista OS may not work with > the sound card programs. > > Is this true? I would like to hear from you Vista owners good and > bad. I would like to know what laptop brand your using. > > Thanks > > KD7Jeh Bert > >
Re: [digitalradio] Comparing data modes
> What were the sampling rates used by each of those 5 applications, Tony? > 73, Dave, AA6YQ Dave, The sample rates were 11025 Hz for Mixw and IZ8BLY MT63 terminal. Looks like 8000 Hz for DM780 and Multipsk. Not sure what's going on with Fldigi. I'm using the Vista version. Tony, K2MO
[digitalradio] Sound card and Vista
Hello to the group, I am in the market for a new laptop that will be use for ham radio software such as PSK 31. I been told that Vista OS may not work with the sound card programs. Is this true? I would like to hear from you Vista owners good and bad. I would like to know what laptop brand your using. Thanks KD7Jeh Bert
Re: [digitalradio] RTTY: Some "new ones" I mopped up this weekend
Andrew O'Brien wrote: > > Some "new ones" I mopped up this weekend > > Date Time Call Band Mode Station > Call Result > > 2008-09-28 15:02:37 ES5RY 20M RTTY > K3UK first Estonia QSO: RTTY > 2008-09-28 16:58:49 FG5LA 15M RTTY > K3UK first Guadeloupe QSO: 15M > 2008-09-28 17:53:47 3V8BB 15M RTTY > K3UK first Tunisia QSO: entity, 15M, RTTY > 2008-09-28 20:16:03 CS7A 20M RTTY > K3UK first Portugal QSO: RTTY > 2008-09-28 21:20:24 E73M 20M RTTY > K3UK first Bosnia-Herzegovina QSO: RTTY > 2008-09-28 21:42:47 LX7I 20M RTTY > K3UK first Luxembourg QSO: RTTY > > The good news courtesy of DX Keeper Import Award Progress Report > -- > Andy K3UK > Congratulations! Despite generally crappy conditions here, I picked up a few new ones myself: Serbia: YT8A on 40 YU4A on 20 Slovenia: S53M on 40 Liechtenstein HB0/DK9FEC on 20 I was able to work FG5LA and heard 3V8BB, both on 20 but couldn't bag him. The only station I heard on 15 was HC8N, and didn't hear squat on 10. Where are the *@&#%$ sunspots? 73, Mike N5UKZ > _ > > >
RE: [digitalradio] Comparing data modes
What were the sampling rates used by each of those 5 applications, Tony? 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tony Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 8:55 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Comparing data modes > Its my understanding that when multiple simultaneously running applications > are using the soundcard with different sampling rates, that Windows delivers > a compromise sampling rate. Thus comparisons run on the same PC may not > accurately reflect each application's performance in isolation. >73, Dave, AA6YQ Always wondered about that Dave. I ran several programs simultaneously while testing their ability to decode MT63 using an HF path simulator. It turned out that 3 out of the 5 programs tested performed exactly the same. They decoded error-free with a minimum SNR of -8db. The other two required an SNR of -5db and -6db. The outcome was the same whether I ran the programs simultaneously or one at a time. Tony, K2MO - Original Message - From: "Dave AA6YQ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 8:14 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Comparing data modes > Its my understanding that when multiple simultaneously running applications > are using the soundcard with different sampling rates, that Windows delivers > a compromise sampling rate. Thus comparisons run on the same PC may not > accurately reflect each application's performance in isolation. > > 73, > >Dave, AA6YQ > > -Original Message- > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Rick W > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 7:23 PM > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [digitalradio] Comparing data modes > > > To do simple test comparisons of the modes, I will bring up two software > programs and visually see how the print compares between the two. The > main comparisons have been between Multipsk, HRD/DM780, and fldigi. For > most of these tests I have been using my emachines tower with Intel 2.93 > GHz running Windows XP. > > I also have an HP Pavilion tower with AMD 4600+ chip running Vista and > have been using it primarily for tests with my SignaLinkUSB interface to > my ICOM IC-7000, which also allows me to have two digital data stations > in the shack to perform ARQ testing with NBEMS. I can not view both > computers at the same time since I use a KVM switch to work between them. > > I have not been able to see any situations where one program is clearly > superior to another in decoding the signals. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > >> Rick previously had written: >> >> >>> When I have done some crude comparisons with actual off air tests >>> between different programs, there is usually not a lot of difference >>> >> Tony wrote: >> >> I'm interested in your test method. >> >> Tony, K2MO >> >> > > > > >
[digitalradio] RTTY: Some "new ones" I mopped up this weekend
Some "new ones" I mopped up this weekend Date Time CallBand Mode Station CallResult 2008-09-28 15:02:37 ES5RY 20M RTTY K3UKfirst Estonia QSO: RTTY 2008-09-28 16:58:49 FG5LA 15M RTTY K3UKfirst Guadeloupe QSO: 15M 2008-09-28 17:53:47 3V8BB 15M RTTY K3UKfirst Tunisia QSO: entity, 15M, RTTY 2008-09-28 20:16:03 CS7A 20M RTTY K3UKfirst Portugal QSO: RTTY 2008-09-28 21:20:24 E73M 20M RTTY K3UKfirst Bosnia-Herzegovina QSO: RTTY 2008-09-28 21:42:47 LX7I 20M RTTY K3UK first Luxembourg QSO: RTTY The good news courtesy of DX Keeper Import Award Progress Report -- Andy K3UK -- Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Comparing data modes
> Its my understanding that when multiple simultaneously running applications > are using the soundcard with different sampling rates, that Windows delivers > a compromise sampling rate. Thus comparisons run on the same PC may not > accurately reflect each application's performance in isolation. >73, Dave, AA6YQ Always wondered about that Dave. I ran several programs simultaneously while testing their ability to decode MT63 using an HF path simulator. It turned out that 3 out of the 5 programs tested performed exactly the same. They decoded error-free with a minimum SNR of -8db. The other two required an SNR of -5db and -6db. The outcome was the same whether I ran the programs simultaneously or one at a time. Tony, K2MO - Original Message - From: "Dave AA6YQ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 8:14 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Comparing data modes > Its my understanding that when multiple simultaneously running applications > are using the soundcard with different sampling rates, that Windows delivers > a compromise sampling rate. Thus comparisons run on the same PC may not > accurately reflect each application's performance in isolation. > > 73, > >Dave, AA6YQ > > -Original Message- > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Rick W > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 7:23 PM > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [digitalradio] Comparing data modes > > > To do simple test comparisons of the modes, I will bring up two software > programs and visually see how the print compares between the two. The > main comparisons have been between Multipsk, HRD/DM780, and fldigi. For > most of these tests I have been using my emachines tower with Intel 2.93 > GHz running Windows XP. > > I also have an HP Pavilion tower with AMD 4600+ chip running Vista and > have been using it primarily for tests with my SignaLinkUSB interface to > my ICOM IC-7000, which also allows me to have two digital data stations > in the shack to perform ARQ testing with NBEMS. I can not view both > computers at the same time since I use a KVM switch to work between them. > > I have not been able to see any situations where one program is clearly > superior to another in decoding the signals. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > >> Rick previously had written: >> >> >>> When I have done some crude comparisons with actual off air tests >>> between different programs, there is usually not a lot of difference >>> >> Tony wrote: >> >> I'm interested in your test method. >> >> Tony, K2MO >> >> > > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Comparing data modes
I COULD NOT AGREE MORE WITH THE BELOW STATEMENT EX MT 63 I RUN IZ8BLY DECODE IS GREAT BUT SLOW COMPARED TO MULTI PSK 4.9/4.10 WHICH IS 2X FASTER DECODE BUT PRONE TO MORE ERRORS TEST DONE ON SAME RECEIVER TO CPU'S AND GMFSK FOR LINUX PERSONALLY DOESN.T HOLD A CANDLE TO THE OTHER TWO AND NOT ONLY SAMPLING RATE WHAT ABOUT RESOURCES USED TO RUN TWO PROGRAMS IE RAM? FOR MORE ACCURATE DATA USE TWO CPU'S FLDIGI THOR 11 IS GREAT ON 180 M AT NIGHT AMAZING! DRM IS REALLY GOOD BUT HAVE NOT USED IT IN A WHILE GOOD LUCK IN TESTING MATT KC2PUA Its my understanding that when multiple simultaneously running applications are using the soundcard with different sampling rates, that Windows delivers a compromise sampling rate. Thus comparisons run on the same PC may not accurately reflect each application' s performance in isolation. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradi [EMAIL PROTECTED] com]On Behalf Of Rick W Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 7:23 PM To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: [digitalradio] Comparing data modes To do simple test comparisons of the modes, I will bring up two software programs and visually see how the print compares between the two. The main comparisons have been between Multipsk, HRD/DM780, and fldigi. For most of these tests I have been using my emachines tower with Intel 2.93 GHz running Windows XP. I also have an HP Pavilion tower with AMD 4600+ chip running Vista and have been using it primarily for tests with my SignaLinkUSB interface to my ICOM IC-7000, which also allows me to have two digital data stations in the shack to perform ARQ testing with NBEMS. I can not view both computers at the same time since I use a KVM switch to work between them. I have not been able to see any situations where one program is clearly superior to another in decoding the signals. 73, Rick, KV9U > Rick previously had written: > > >> When I have done some crude comparisons with actual off air tests >> between different programs, there is usually not a lot of difference >> > Tony wrote: > > I'm interested in your test method. > > Tony, K2MO > >
RE: [digitalradio] Comparing data modes
Also, there is no reason to believe that the two applications would be equally penalized by a compromise sampling rate -- so the results of the comparison would be suspect unless its known that both applications use the same sampling rate. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 8:14 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Comparing data modes Its my understanding that when multiple simultaneously running applications are using the soundcard with different sampling rates, that Windows delivers a compromise sampling rate. Thus comparisons run on the same PC may not accurately reflect each application's performance in isolation. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Rick W Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 7:23 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Comparing data modes To do simple test comparisons of the modes, I will bring up two software programs and visually see how the print compares between the two. The main comparisons have been between Multipsk, HRD/DM780, and fldigi. For most of these tests I have been using my emachines tower with Intel 2.93 GHz running Windows XP. I also have an HP Pavilion tower with AMD 4600+ chip running Vista and have been using it primarily for tests with my SignaLinkUSB interface to my ICOM IC-7000, which also allows me to have two digital data stations in the shack to perform ARQ testing with NBEMS. I can not view both computers at the same time since I use a KVM switch to work between them. I have not been able to see any situations where one program is clearly superior to another in decoding the signals. 73, Rick, KV9U > Rick previously had written: > > >> When I have done some crude comparisons with actual off air tests >> between different programs, there is usually not a lot of difference >> > Tony wrote: > > I'm interested in your test method. > > Tony, K2MO > >
RE: [digitalradio] Comparing data modes
Its my understanding that when multiple simultaneously running applications are using the soundcard with different sampling rates, that Windows delivers a compromise sampling rate. Thus comparisons run on the same PC may not accurately reflect each application's performance in isolation. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Rick W Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 7:23 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Comparing data modes To do simple test comparisons of the modes, I will bring up two software programs and visually see how the print compares between the two. The main comparisons have been between Multipsk, HRD/DM780, and fldigi. For most of these tests I have been using my emachines tower with Intel 2.93 GHz running Windows XP. I also have an HP Pavilion tower with AMD 4600+ chip running Vista and have been using it primarily for tests with my SignaLinkUSB interface to my ICOM IC-7000, which also allows me to have two digital data stations in the shack to perform ARQ testing with NBEMS. I can not view both computers at the same time since I use a KVM switch to work between them. I have not been able to see any situations where one program is clearly superior to another in decoding the signals. 73, Rick, KV9U > Rick previously had written: > > >> When I have done some crude comparisons with actual off air tests >> between different programs, there is usually not a lot of difference >> > Tony wrote: > > I'm interested in your test method. > > Tony, K2MO > >
Re: [digitalradio] Comparing data modes
Rick, > To do simple test comparisons of the modes, I will bring up two software > programs and visually see how the print compares between the two. Seems to be the only way to make a fair comparison Rick. I do the same thing here whether it's on-the-air or with the HF simulator running. The PC doesn't seem to mind when running as many as 5 digital mode programs at the same time. Tony, K2MO - Original Message - From: "Rick W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 7:22 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Comparing data modes > To do simple test comparisons of the modes, I will bring up two software > programs and visually see how the print compares between the two. The > main comparisons have been between Multipsk, HRD/DM780, and fldigi. For > most of these tests I have been using my emachines tower with Intel 2.93 > GHz running Windows XP. > > I also have an HP Pavilion tower with AMD 4600+ chip running Vista and > have been using it primarily for tests with my SignaLinkUSB interface to > my ICOM IC-7000, which also allows me to have two digital data stations > in the shack to perform ARQ testing with NBEMS. I can not view both > computers at the same time since I use a KVM switch to work between them. > > I have not been able to see any situations where one program is clearly > superior to another in decoding the signals. > > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > >> Rick previously had written: >> >> >>> When I have done some crude comparisons with actual off air tests >>> between different programs, there is usually not a lot of difference >>> >> Tony wrote: >> >> I'm interested in your test method. >> >> Tony, K2MO >> >> > >
Re: [digitalradio] QRV MT63 -- 14106.0 USB
2325Z and calling but so far nothing heard. 500 Hz BW. 73, Rick, KV9U Tony wrote: > All, > > I'm QRV MT63 14106.0 USB @ 2245z. I'll be here for a while. > > Tony, K2MO >
[digitalradio] Comparing data modes
To do simple test comparisons of the modes, I will bring up two software programs and visually see how the print compares between the two. The main comparisons have been between Multipsk, HRD/DM780, and fldigi. For most of these tests I have been using my emachines tower with Intel 2.93 GHz running Windows XP. I also have an HP Pavilion tower with AMD 4600+ chip running Vista and have been using it primarily for tests with my SignaLinkUSB interface to my ICOM IC-7000, which also allows me to have two digital data stations in the shack to perform ARQ testing with NBEMS. I can not view both computers at the same time since I use a KVM switch to work between them. I have not been able to see any situations where one program is clearly superior to another in decoding the signals. 73, Rick, KV9U > Rick previously had written: > > >> When I have done some crude comparisons with actual off air tests >> between different programs, there is usually not a lot of difference >> > Tony wrote: > > I'm interested in your test method. > > Tony, K2MO > >
[digitalradio] QRV MT63 -- 14106.0 USB
All, I'm QRV MT63 14106.0 USB @ 2245z. I'll be here for a while. Tony, K2MO
[digitalradio] Fldigi and MT63 - default settings
All, Received an email regarding MT63 decode problems with Fldigi. It seems that the program chooses the short interleave setting by default. This is not compatible with the long-interleave 'standard' used by the majority of MT63 users. To correct this, click configure / modems and then the MT63 tab. Check the 64 bit interleave box. This will solve the problem. Fldigi's MT63 decode capability seems identical to IZ8BLY's. Tony, K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] MT63 -- Mutlipsk, IZ8BLY, MixW
Rick, > When I have done some crude comparisons with actual off air tests > between different programs, there is usually not a lot of difference I'm interested in your test method. Tony, K2MO
[digitalradio] Re: RTTY Dilemma
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Ellison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is a long standing standard that The standard for BOTH amateur and > commercial FSK has ALWAYS been "specify MARK" with MARK being the higher RF > frequency and SPACE being the lower RF frequency (e.g., shift low). I'm aware that is the de-facto standard for amateur use, was not aware that it is also standard for commercial use. The U.S. military has long used the center frequency rather than mark or space - this was pretty annoying in setting up a MARS station since the center frequency is one that you never transmit. I suppose it is the result of using military FSK exciters such as the O-5/FR where if you set the shift control to zero you get the center frequency, and as you turn it away from zero the mark and space move away from the center by equal amounts. Amateurs most often used diode shifters on the VFO in the days before SSB, and thus setting the shift to zero resulted in transmitting either the mark or space frequency (depending on how it was wired) rather than the center frequency.
Re: [digitalradio] RTTY Dilemma
Aha! I get the point. I was thinking 'casual' and you were thinking 'competitive'. Sorry for the QRM. :-[ Michael Keane K1MK wrote: > On 9/28/2008 9:04 PM, Chuck Mayfield wrote: > > >> Are you picking Nits? You actually want all the software developers >> except three to make modifications for 85 Hz? >> > > Of course not. It's be much more effective to ask those using software > with that sort of defect to refrain from generating inaccurate spots; or > learn how to set up the radios and software they're using according to > convention :-) > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked 30M digital activity at http://www.projectsandparts.com/30m Recommended software : DM780, Multipsk, FLDIGI, Winwarbler ,MMVARI. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> 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] RTTY Dilemma
On 9/28/2008 9:04 PM, Chuck Mayfield wrote: > Are you picking Nits? You actually want all the software developers > except three to make modifications for 85 Hz? Of course not. It's be much more effective to ask those using software with that sort of defect to refrain from generating inaccurate spots; or learn how to set up the radios and software they're using according to convention :-) > Oh, say, does everyone know which is the Mark and which is the Space? Probably not. All the more reason why it's most effective for software developers to know the difference and to follow the established standard. > On twenty meters you are talking about the 5th and 6th decimal places. > 14.08 vs 14.080085 MHz. The spotting network was designed to pass 0.1 Hz precision frequency information and not 100 Hz precision for specific reasons. The 85 Hz frequency error in not spotting the mark frequency error puts the space tone of a RTTY signal out of the passband of on a 250 Hz wide filter. Yes, accurate spotting on RTTY does matter to those who use the spotting network for it's designed purpose. Cudos to N2AMG for taking the time to establish that the emperor has no new clothes... 73, Mike K1MK Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked 30M digital activity at http://www.projectsandparts.com/30m Recommended software : DM780, Multipsk, FLDIGI, Winwarbler ,MMVARI. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> 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: RTTY Dilemma
Rick, this is important work, thanks for taking the time to do it. I use Winwarbler or Win-test for RTTY (FSK), glad to know they are correct. Andy --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Ellison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > After an email exchange with Joe W4TV about some support help he was giving > to a person using one of my gateways . He brought to my attention on the way > the frequency was being read and displayed RTTY. If I wanted to place a spot > on the correct frequency I would need to place the actual frequency +/-86hz > because this app I am connecting to uses the center frequency as it's > marker. So I made the changes in the code to compensate for that and spent > since this morning clicking on over a thousand spots (1225 to be exact) to > see if it landed on the correct spot in the waterfall. But what I found was > a little more than half(714) of the spots I clicked I was always off by the > 85 hz I adjusted for. If I just used the center frequency I was correct in > those spot's placement. So I went and did some checking. Every digital app > that copied RTTY except for the 3 main contest > loggers(N1MM,Writelog,Win-Test), MMTTY in Stand-alone, and WinWarbler. All > use the center frequency even when spotting stations if they can spot. Those > mentioned all use the Mark Frequency when clicking on a spot and placing the > station in the waterfall. > > > > It is a long standing standard that The standard for BOTH amateur and > commercial FSK has ALWAYS been "specify MARK" with MARK being the higher RF > frequency and SPACKE being the lower RF frequency (e.g., shift low). > > > > With all of the Digital Apps that use a center frequency When dealing with > RTTY should be using the mark frequency for their frequency calculations not > the center. Even tho USB has become the standard when LSB always has been, > The recorded frequency for logging and spotting should be the Mark. If all > of the software developers stuck to this standard clicking on a spot would > reduce additional tuning needed to tune the off frequency stations. > > > > 73's Rick N2AMG > > Yahoo:n2amg > > Aim:n2amg >
[digitalradio] Re: RTTY Dilemma
Hello, Yes, RTTY 85 Hz is very much off frequency in contest situation with full band of QRM and so on. In last 48 hours we can check it in CQWW RTTY contest. Precise spotting in RTTY is real problem. Agree with N2AMG/Rich, this situation is not normal. 73 Vilnis YL2KF > Rick, > Are you picking Nits? You actually want all the software developers > except three to make modifications for 85 Hz? > Oh, say, does everyone know which is the Mark and which is the Space? > On twenty meters you are talking about the 5th and 6th decimal places. > 14.08 vs 14.080085 MHz. > Give me a break!!! > > Chuck AA5J > > Rick Ellison wrote: > > > > That should be 85hz not 86hz > > > > 73's Rick N2AMG
Re: [digitalradio] MT63 -- Mutlipsk, IZ8BLY, MixW/Olivia
> unlike PSK31 that mostly utilize the same 'core", other modes my well > require comparison tests to > determine which is consistently "better". > Andy K3UK Very interesting Andy. Patrick (F6CTE) motioned that sound card sampling accuracy plays a role with MT63. Tony, K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] MT63 -- Mutlipsk, IZ8BLY, MixW
Hi Dave,
> Hi Tony.have you tried fldigi.. MT63
Yes I have. The simulator says it decodes about as well as IZ8BLY's
software.
Tony, K2MO
- Original Message -
From: "David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] MT63 -- Mutlipsk, IZ8BLY, MixW
> Hi Tony.have you tried fldigi...it is available from
> http://w1hkj.com in both Windows XP and Vista as well as Linux.
> it has MT63 500,1000 and 2000
>
> 73 David VK4BDJ
>
>
>
> Tony wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> There seems to be some difference between Mutlipsk, MixW and IZ8BLY's
>> software when it comes to decoding MT63. I ran all three programs
>> simultaneously with a path simulator in line and the SNR set above the
>> decode threshold.
>>
>> The results were the same whether I ran the programs one at a time or
>> simultaneously. Not sure why this is; would appreciate it if someone
>> can shed some light on this. I plan to run each program on-the-air to
>> see if the results change.
>>
>> Tony, K2MO
>>
>>
>>
>> Test #1: SNR -6db selective fading
>> Test #2: SNR -3db selective fading
>> Test #3: SNR -3db selective fading / lightning static
>>
>>
>> Test #1
>>
>> IZ8BLY MT63 Terminal
>> TH QUICK BRAOWN FOX JUOPS OVER THE LAZY [OG
>> THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPSOVER THE LAZY DOG
>> THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>> THE QUICK BROWNFOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>>
>> MixW
>> TH QUI4 M)9"Nd3/ANjV (UT$ExLZY UG
>> THE QUICK BRmWN 1OX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>> THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>> THE QUI>K BROWN F9XFJUmPS "VER THE LAZY DOG
>>
>> Multipsk
>> YhlU+ O~^ FlX JUiPSkOVER THE LAZY DOG
>> THE QUICK{BOovFV!D.M]y5xVr| +v75UX7ØOpL{
>> z]p?Bx~i6GzV$cSNVDcTH: LØZY DOG]mOT*
>>
>> _
>>
>> Test #2
>>
>> MT63 Terminal
>> THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>> THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>> THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>> THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>>
>>
>> MixW
>> THF QUIaK BRORNdFOX J$MPS ?[7@ TWE LAZY DOG
>> THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>> THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>> THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>>
>> Multipsk
>> THE QUICK BROWN FOX JM8; O5Es HE LAZY DG
>> THe*QICK BROWN F+X JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>> THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>> THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>>
>> __
>>
>> Test #3
>>
>> IZ8BLY MT63 TERMINAL
>> RON FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>> THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>> THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>> THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>>
>> MIXW
>> HE QUIAn BROWtF?X:J+MPS v)rR TE L/ZY DOG
>> THE QUICK BRKWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>> THE QUICK BRO9 FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>> THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>>
>> MULTIPSK
>> $Xiu(L Kka?SO?m)#-ap^jtOu{+^d4,-`Ø$P{&&8YAZY O)
>> ,njl'KuBRja "_J(/S VØRU!H5N(1=YDOG
>> THE QUIkK B}O9g OY4JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>> THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZYØDOG
>>
>
>
