[digitalradio] NZ4O Radiowave Propagation Forecast #2010-04
The NZ4O Daily LF/MF/HF/6M Frequency Radiowave Propagation Forecast #2010-04 has been published on Friday 01/22/2009 at 1000 UTC, valid UTC Saturday 01/23/2010 through 2359 UTC Friday 01/23/2009 at http://www.solarcycle24.org . 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA n...@arrl.net LF/MF/HF/VHF/UHF Frequency Radiowave Propagation Email Reflector: http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/spaceweather NZ4O Daily Solar Space Weather Geomagnetic Data Archive: http://www.solarcycle24.org NZ4O Solar Space Weather Geomagnetic Data In Graphic Image Format: http://www.wcflunatall.com/nz4o2.htm NZ4O Daily LF/MF/HF/6M Frequency Radiowave Propagation Forecast Archive: http://www.wcflunatall.com/nz4o3.htm NZ4O Solar Cycle 24 Forecast Discussion Archive: http://www.wcflunatall.com/nz4o4.htm NZ4O 160 Meter Radio Propagation Theory Notes: http://www.wcflunatall.com/nz4o5.htm NZ4O Solar Space Weather Geomagnetic Raw Forecast Data Links: http://www.wcflunatall.com/nz4o6.htm Harmful Man Induced Climate Change (Global Warming) Refuted: http://www.globalwarminglie.htm Suggested frequencies for calling CQ with experimental digital modes = 3584,10147, 14074 USB on your dial plus 1000Hz on waterfall. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked 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: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Comparison of RTTY software sensitivity
Here is another, similar chart: http://www.dxatlas.com/RttyCompare/ I was comparing MMTTY with MultiPSK and gMFSK against RTTY in white noise. Interesting observation was that MMTTY was better than MultiPSK at better than marginal SNR, but MultiPSK was slightly better than MMTTY at very low SNR. My best bet is that MMTTY is doing some kind of signal processing after detector, which fixes some errors, but makes things worse in very low SNR. Both yours and Alex's graphs show superiority of TrueRTTY and MixW. I wonder whether TrueRTTY is doing synchronous detection. This is what I plan to try when I retire, hi. 73, Vojtech OK1IAK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Comparison of RTTY software sensitivity
Both yours and Alex's graphs show superiority of TrueRTTY and MixW. I wonder whether TrueRTTY is doing synchronous detection. This is what I plan to try when I retire, hi. 73, Vojtech OK1IAK TrueTTY also gave results better than any other package tested for MFSK16. Wes, WZ7I
[digitalradio] TrueTTY
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Wes Cosand wes.cos...@gmail.com wrote: Both yours and Alex's graphs show superiority of TrueRTTY and MixW. I wonder whether TrueRTTY is doing synchronous detection. This is what I plan to try when I retire, hi. 73, Vojtech OK1IAK TrueTTY also gave results better than any other package tested for MFSK16. Wes, WZ7I Interesting. I have not used that software in a long time. Are many people using it ? Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] TrueTTY
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Wes Cosand wes.cos...@gmail.comwes.cosand%40gmail.com wrote: Both yours and Alex's graphs show superiority of TrueRTTY and MixW. I wonder whether TrueRTTY is doing synchronous detection. This is what I plan to try when I retire, hi. 73, Vojtech OK1IAK TrueTTY also gave results better than any other package tested for MFSK16. Wes, WZ7I Interesting. I have not used that software in a long time. Are many people using it ? Andy K3UK I haven't heard people using it on the air much but I am registering a copy this morning. It's performance on MFSK is amazing. Wes, WZ7I
Re: [digitalradio] TrueTTY
I have had a registered copy for about 8 years now and love the program, absolutely worth it.. Fred VE3FAL On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:32:06 -0500 Wes Cosand wes.cos...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Wes Cosand wes.cos...@gmail.comwes.cosand%40gmail.com wrote: Both yours and Alex's graphs show superiority of TrueRTTY and MixW. I wonder whether TrueRTTY is doing synchronous detection. This is what I plan to try when I retire, hi. 73, Vojtech OK1IAK TrueTTY also gave results better than any other package tested for MFSK16. Wes, WZ7I Interesting. I have not used that software in a long time. Are many people using it ? Andy K3UK I haven't heard people using it on the air much but I am registering a copy this morning. It's performance on MFSK is amazing. Wes, WZ7I
[digitalradio] Re: Comparison of RTTY software sensitivity
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Vojtech bubn...@... wrote: Both yours and Alex's graphs show superiority of TrueRTTY and MixW. I wonder whether TrueRTTY is doing synchronous detection. This is what I plan to try when I retire, hi. There used to be the K6STI RITTY program which does synchronous detection. I wish we had a comparison of it with some of the modern RTTY software. Trouble is, RITTY requires a DOS environment and a SoundBlaster ISA sound card, and you don't find those much anymore. And it's no longer on the market. I was really excited when it came out, because I had wanted to do synchronous detection for a long time. However it didn't appear to be all that helpful, maybe a db or two. Then PSK31 for the sound card modem came out and most of the rag chewers switched to that from RTTY. Jim W6JVE
[digitalradio] Re: Comparison of RTTY software sensitivity
Now I don't know about TrueTTY, but MMTTY has a number of things you can play with in terms of the filtering and detection, so I wonder if we could get some comparisons of those - or at least tell us what the setup was when it was tested. Jim W6JVE
[digitalradio] Comparison of MFSK16 software sensitivity
Folk: I have conducted an experiment comparing the sensitivity of several software programs for MFSK16 similar to those just posted for RTTY. The data in the MFSK16 tests were a little tighter than in the RTTY experiment, presumably because of the absence of the profound effect of stochastic figures/letters shifts. I am a little torn about posting these data because I am hesitant to use any program for transmitting MFSK16 that does not incorporate Patrick's RSID function. I have been working hams for whom I am their first MFSK16 QSO and it is usually because they are running one of the packages that has RSID. The data is at http://mysite.verizon.net/wz7i/MFSK16.html Once again, I would welcome comments about how the testing could be improved. Wes, WZ7I www.wz7i.com
Re: [digitalradio] Comparison of MFSK16 software sensitivity
I am their first MFSK16 QSO and it is usually because they are running one of the packages that has RSID This has been my experience too. I operate THOR4 and Contestia. Most first time QSOs are with the aid of RSID. philw de ka1gmn On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Wes Cosand wes.cos...@gmail.com wrote: Folk: I have conducted an experiment comparing the sensitivity of several software programs for MFSK16 similar to those just posted for RTTY. The data in the MFSK16 tests were a little tighter than in the RTTY experiment, presumably because of the absence of the profound effect of stochastic figures/letters shifts. I am a little torn about posting these data because I am hesitant to use any program for transmitting MFSK16 that does not incorporate Patrick's RSID function. I have been working hams for whom I am their first MFSK16 QSO and it is usually because they are running one of the packages that has RSID. The data is at http://mysite.verizon.net/wz7i/MFSK16.html Once again, I would welcome comments about how the testing could be improved. Wes, WZ7I www.wz7i.com
[digitalradio] Re: TrueTTY
Andy, I have had a registered copy of TruTTY for years and it constantly outperforms any other program for RTTY. I also think the MFSK-16 and PSK31 implementations are excellent too. Well worth the money if you need a simple to operate, processor non-intensive application. It also interfaces to AALog3 which makes it very useful. For those interested in SW monitoring the SeaTTY program also has excellent performance on Navtex, GMDSS and HF fax. Patrick's MultiPSK fax decoding is slightly better I think but the automatic logging facility of SeaTTY is fantastic. For weak signal Morse then Norbert's MRP40 is unrivaled. If you've never tried this program then download the demo and try it. Sholto K7TMG
[digitalradio] PSK/ digital mode SDR software ?
My shack PC has some resource issues when using the only software that I know of that has some digital mode SDR support, Multipsk. This is because it requires Multipsk AND a SDR software to be used in tandem. The TWO applications are more than my system can handle. I do have CW Skimmer that does NOT require an additional application, thus it runs within my PC''s capabilities, While I try to free up an better computer, I wonder if there are any existing SDR applications that DIRECTLY support digital modes ? Something the equivalent of CW Skimmer for digital modes, where you just press start and the SDR is activated and digital mode decoding occurs ? Andy K3UK
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Comparison of RTTY software sensitivity
MMTTY provides a choice of three different RTTY decoders, with the ability to shape the filters for each. There is also an optional bandpass filter and an optional notch filter, with user control of shape for each. As a first step in improving MMTTY's RTTY decoding performance, I am determining how to optimize performance given the capabilities Mako-san JE3HHT has already provided, using a setup similar to what Alex VE3NEA and Wes WZ7I have used. Note that on the chart Wes posted, WinWarbler running the HyperSensitive profile with both the bandpass and notch filters enabled yields sensitivity close to that of TrueTTY. WinWarbler uses MMTTY as its RTTY engine, so this performance is possible with MMTTY alone. By synchronous detection, Vojtech, do you mean treating the first start bit as the beginning of a synchronous multi-character sequence, thereby providing some protection against broken start and stop bits within that sequence? Brian K6STI referred to his decoding technique as employing a flywheel, which I interpreted as a means of adjusting the synchronous timing with high-quality start bits decoded within the sequence. 73, Dave, AA6YQ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Vojtech Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 8:27 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Comparison of RTTY software sensitivity Here is another, similar chart: http://www.dxatlas.com/RttyCompare/ I was comparing MMTTY with MultiPSK and gMFSK against RTTY in white noise. Interesting observation was that MMTTY was better than MultiPSK at better than marginal SNR, but MultiPSK was slightly better than MMTTY at very low SNR. My best bet is that MMTTY is doing some kind of signal processing after detector, which fixes some errors, but makes things worse in very low SNR. Both yours and Alex's graphs show superiority of TrueRTTY and MixW. I wonder whether TrueRTTY is doing synchronous detection. This is what I plan to try when I retire, hi. 73, Vojtech OK1IAK No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.730 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2636 - Release Date: 01/21/10 15:34:00
[digitalradio] Comparison of RTTY software sensitivity - New tests
Hello Wes and all, I tried here Multipsk versus Mixw at -9 dB of S/N in RTTY 45 (I have not TRUETTY but they seem to be equivalent). I tested with a text and the Multipsk decoding was better than the Mixw one . However, in RTTY the ITA2 set of character is used so it is difficult to compare because figures instead of letters can be seen as bad whereas there are good in fact (simply due to a random switching) . So I tested with C8C8C8C8C8C8C8C8C8C8 to avoid not this problem. I confirmed that the Multipsk RTTY decoding is better than the Mixw one (I don't think to have a partial opinion, I hope so...). But Multipsk could work better on this particular characters, so I tried with 1A2B3C4D5E6F7G8H9...which is a diversified sequence. I got 135 characters OK with Multipsk and 107 on Mixw. In both softs, I set the AFC Off and I tested with a confortable level (about 40 % of the maximum in average, taken on the Multipsk level), same exact AF frequency (830/1000 Hz). Note 1: I used a sound blaster sound card to send the signal which was decoded by both softs (input plugged with the output). Note 2: the decoding on Multipsk and Mixw is almost perfect (only few errors) at about -5.5 dB. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Wes Cosand To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:05 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Comparison of RTTY software sensitivity On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com wrote: Thanks Wes. WinWarbler uses MMTTY as its RTTY engine; thus MMTTY can be configured to achieve the same performance as that shown for WinWarbler. Yes, I certainly did not mean to construct a test to show MMTTY at a disadvantage. I assumed folk would realize that the engine is the same in the two packages. I wanted to see if there was a difference between the Hyper Sensitive profile (which exists as a predefined profile only in WinWarbler) and the Standard profile which is the default in both packages. I was surprised after the tests to see the significant difference in performance made by inserting the notch filter between the mark and space frequencies. TrueTTY would seem to deserve wider attention. I have used UA9OV's CW Get for a number of years to zero beat my CW and perhaps I should keep a copy his TrueTTY running as a second receive modem when I work RTTY. Wes, WZ7I
Re: [digitalradio] PSK/ digital mode SDR software ?
Andy, is because it requires Multipsk AND a SDR software to be used in Multipsk works alone on SdR (RX/TX). You don't need another SdR (and surely it would be a mess to work with two SdR programs doing the same thing). Simply, indicate in Multipsk which sound card (or sound cards if a speaker is added) to work. That's all. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com To: digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 10:58 PM Subject: [digitalradio] PSK/ digital mode SDR software ? My shack PC has some resource issues when using the only software that I know of that has some digital mode SDR support, Multipsk. This is because it requires Multipsk AND a SDR software to be used in tandem. The TWO applications are more than my system can handle. I do have CW Skimmer that does NOT require an additional application, thus it runs within my PC''s capabilities, While I try to free up an better computer, I wonder if there are any existing SDR applications that DIRECTLY support digital modes ? Something the equivalent of CW Skimmer for digital modes, where you just press start and the SDR is activated and digital mode decoding occurs ? Andy K3UK Suggested frequencies for calling CQ with experimental digital modes = 3584,10147, 14074 USB on your dial plus 1000Hz on waterfall. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] PSK/ digital mode SDR software ?
I'm sorry I don't understand Patrick. How do you start the SDR's reception in Multipsk ? The SDR I have is not playing audio until usual SDR software starts the receiver and audio flows . I do not see that in Multipsk ? Andy K3UK On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Patrick Lindecker f6...@free.fr wrote: Andy, is because it requires Multipsk AND a SDR software to be used in Multipsk works alone on SdR (RX/TX). You don't need another SdR (and surely it would be a mess to work with two SdR programs doing the same thing). Simply, indicate in Multipsk which sound card (or sound cards if a speaker is added) to work. That's all. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com k3ukandy%40gmail.com To: digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.comdigitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 10:58 PM Subject: [digitalradio] PSK/ digital mode SDR software ? My shack PC has some resource issues when using the only software that I know of that has some digital mode SDR support, Multipsk. This is because it requires Multipsk AND a SDR software to be used in tandem. The TWO applications are more than my system can handle. I do have CW Skimmer that does NOT require an additional application, thus it runs within my PC''s capabilities, While I try to free up an better computer, I wonder if there are any existing SDR applications that DIRECTLY support digital modes ? Something the equivalent of CW Skimmer for digital modes, where you just press start and the SDR is activated and digital mode decoding occurs ? Andy K3UK Suggested frequencies for calling CQ with experimental digital modes = 3584,10147, 14074 USB on your dial plus 1000Hz on waterfall. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] PSK/ digital mode SDR software ?
Andy, By default, for digital RX/TX, you don't strictly need to hear the sound. When you pushed on I/Q interface Direct via the sound card, you could RX/TX just selecting the desired signal on the waterfall. Now if you want to hear the received sound (the base band demodulated one, not the SdR one), push on +Speaker and select the Auxiliary Sound card (to Speaker). You need a second sound card for this: * a SWL could use the same sound card to RX SdR and listen to the demodulated sound, * as a Ham, you must use a first (good) sound card to RX/TX and a second one (standard) to listen to the demodulated sound. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Andy obrien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:13 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] PSK/ digital mode SDR software ? I'm sorry I don't understand Patrick. How do you start the SDR's reception in Multipsk ? The SDR I have is not playing audio until usual SDR software starts the receiver and audio flows . I do not see that in Multipsk ? Andy K3UK On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Patrick Lindecker f6...@free.fr wrote: Andy, is because it requires Multipsk AND a SDR software to be used in Multipsk works alone on SdR (RX/TX). You don't need another SdR (and surely it would be a mess to work with two SdR programs doing the same thing). Simply, indicate in Multipsk which sound card (or sound cards if a speaker is added) to work. That's all. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com To: digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 10:58 PM Subject: [digitalradio] PSK/ digital mode SDR software ? My shack PC has some resource issues when using the only software that I know of that has some digital mode SDR support, Multipsk. This is because it requires Multipsk AND a SDR software to be used in tandem. The TWO applications are more than my system can handle. I do have CW Skimmer that does NOT require an additional application, thus it runs within my PC''s capabilities, While I try to free up an better computer, I wonder if there are any existing SDR applications that DIRECTLY support digital modes ? Something the equivalent of CW Skimmer for digital modes, where you just press start and the SDR is activated and digital mode decoding occurs ? Andy K3UK Suggested frequencies for calling CQ with experimental digital modes = 3584,10147, 14074 USB on your dial plus 1000Hz on waterfall. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Comparison of RTTY software sensitivity - New tests
Patrick, thank you for your kind note. I discovered, as you have known for a long time, that testing RTTY is not easy because of random figures/letters shifts. As you said, a single inappropriate shift can mess up a lot of characters! That makes the statistics difficult. My test text file is at http://mysite.verizon.net/wz7i/Text%20file%20for%20testing%20communications%20software.html I used call signs and about 30% five number groups to try to deal with this issue. I tested with UOS off because of the number groups. It may be that I should have used a shorter file and then tested it with different audio files a number of times to get reasonable statistics but that seemed too much work... chuckle... The error bars on the graph might have been significant. Instead I tried to run a long enough text file to average out all the random shifts. It probably wasn't long enough to try to analyze the data too closely. I, too, tested with AFC off. I used the audio frequencies used for FSK so that is a difference. Our audio levels were about the same -- 40% sounds about right. As I said earlier, it is possible that I have incorporated some error in my methods. It is possible that I am straining at gnats and swallowing camels :-) Thank you for your patience with me. 73 de Wes, WZ7I
AW: [digitalradio] Digital modes with an SDR ?
Dear Andy What sdr and what trx are you using? I use a icom 765 with a homebrewd downconverter not a real sdr but I can use the software that is built for if of 12khz And it is possible to connect powersdr with hrd to control the trx A friend from me did this with his kenwood ts2000 (no downmixer needed cause last if is 12khz) 73´s dg9bfc sigi _ Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] Im Auftrag von Andy obrien Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Januar 2010 05:04 An: digitalradio Betreff: [digitalradio] Digital modes with an SDR ? My SDR receiver is due to be delivered tomorrow. I am looking forward to using a wide band panadapter for receive and having my transceiver sync'd for ability to transmit when desired. Since I vacillate between CW and digital modes , I will enjoy keeping an eye on both portions of a band at the same time. I am also looking forward to trying Multipsk with is SDR capabilities and RS ID combination. I assume there are many others with SDR transceivers or receivers here in this group, and wonder how you are using it for digital modes ? Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Comparison of RTTY software sensitivity - New tests
Hello Wes, I saw the test file. It is nice except the long suite of figures, which could be a cause of possible systematic failure (with many errors following a first error) . Better would be to keep only the call signs which include figures and letters and produce a good diversity (and so a more precise statistic result). Also it would be perhaps interesting to transmit the RTTY characters through 2 different programs because a program could produce a not exactly nominal RTTY transmission and its decoding could match this transmission (for example, the stop must be 1.5 bits but can vary in fact). If, with two different transmissions, the results are the same, they can be considered as reliable. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Wes Cosand To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:42 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Comparison of RTTY software sensitivity - New tests Patrick, thank you for your kind note. I discovered, as you have known for a long time, that testing RTTY is not easy because of random figures/letters shifts. As you said, a single inappropriate shift can mess up a lot of characters! That makes the statistics difficult. My test text file is at http://mysite.verizon.net/wz7i/Text%20file%20for%20testing%20communications%20software.html I used call signs and about 30% five number groups to try to deal with this issue. I tested with UOS off because of the number groups. It may be that I should have used a shorter file and then tested it with different audio files a number of times to get reasonable statistics but that seemed too much work... chuckle... The error bars on the graph might have been significant. Instead I tried to run a long enough text file to average out all the random shifts. It probably wasn't long enough to try to analyze the data too closely. I, too, tested with AFC off. I used the audio frequencies used for FSK so that is a difference. Our audio levels were about the same -- 40% sounds about right. As I said earlier, it is possible that I have incorporated some error in my methods. It is possible that I am straining at gnats and swallowing camels :-) Thank you for your patience with me. 73 de Wes, WZ7I
Re: [digitalradio] Comparison of RTTY software sensitivity - New tests
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Patrick Lindecker f6...@free.fr wrote: Hello Wes, I saw the test file. It is nice except the long suite of figures, which could be a cause of possible systematic failure (with many errors following a first error) . Better would be to keep only the call signs which include figures and letters and produce a good diversity (and so a more precise statistic result). Also it would be perhaps interesting to transmit the RTTY characters through 2 different programs because a program could produce a not exactly nominal RTTY transmission and its decoding could match this transmission (for example, the stop must be 1.5 bits but can vary in fact). If, with two different transmissions, the results are the same, they can be considered as reliable. 73 Patrick Good suggestions, Patrick. I will get it done. But first I must go to a birthday party for my 6 year old Grandson! I have to have my priorities right... HI HI Wes, WZ7I
