RE: [digitalradio] Re: Individual software programs for various digital modes...

[Ed G]

 

   In my opinion any of those radios would be fine for digital work.  I am not 
familiar enough with either to suggest which would be best for digital.  
Perhaps others here can help…..

 

  Ed  K7AAT

 

  

Thanks Ed, No I've had the TS2k for quite a while, so I can fumble thru it. But 
learning the Flex 5k Is a thrill. Anything with a manual over 200 pgs. I keep 
it handy, and they both do. I'll have to wait for the first, a week and a half, 
to get the Signal Link USB and will do a google for that software. Besides I 
have 3 Dr appointments next week, one even out of town...Thanks again...Bill 
N8VWI

PS I do have a Yaesu 890AT and a Icom 745, would either of those be easier, in 
your opinion? I want to keep one radio for this alone. 

 

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Individual software programs for various digital modes...

[Ed G]

 

   In my view,  the SignaLink USB interface is the way to go,  both for good 
operation,  and simplicity of installation.

 

   Also,  I have found AirLink Express to be the most simple program for PSK31 
or RTTY….  Even compared to Digipan .   Of course one ham’s simplicity may be 
another ham’s complexity… and personal choices vary widely here on this.  
Still, I recommend AirLinkExpress be tried first.   Regarding that TS-2000 ….  
I can only suggest the manual be read repeatedly while playing with the radio 
so the operator can become familiar with it.  It is a fairly complex radio,  
albeit a good one.

 

  73

 

  Ed   K7AAT

 

 

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of greathoun...@aol.com
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 10:22 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Individual software programs for various 
digital modes...

 

  

I guess I just feel into the newby bucket. Just got off the phone with a buddy, 
I guess I got talked into learning to do psk31. He said he was told to get a 
Signallink thingy. Is that the best easy one to get, or is there better? I see 
that you list Airlink Express, is that a easy one to learn? I have a k'wood 
TS2000 and a Flex 5000 That I'm trying to fumble thru.. Any suggestions would 
be greatly appreciated. Oh, he doesn't know how to run it either, and I think 
he wants me to help him ;-) Thanks  Bill N8VWI

 

In a message dated 6/18/2010 1:10:39 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
k5...@yahoo.com writes:

  


"The multitude of buttons, tabs, logs,  maps, etc etc in such as Ham Radio 
Deluxe can be quite overwhelming when compared to the elegant simplicity of 
such as AirLink Express ,  if all you want to do is PSK31 or RTTY basic 
communications"
Overwhelming yes, but also can get in your way. The same is true of logging 
programs. This is why I am writing my own logging program with simplicity in 
mind, but with all the features I want and need. It seems to me that Ham Radio 
Deluxe and other ham programs ( I am not picking on HRD, it is a great program 
) could allow the user to go a setup area and turn off a lot of stuff that only 
a few users would ever need. Some programs are starting to do this as users 
demand more features. I am one of those who likes FLDIGI-ROL. This program is 
not overwhelming and still has most features that one needs. I use HRD and 
other programs occasionally  but still come back to FLDIG verison ROL. With me 
it's all about compromise. Writing software that everyone likes is NOT easy. I 
know I have been doing it for many years.

I agree with both Ed and Julian, good posts.

K5WGM


--- On Fri, 6/18/10, Ed G  wrote:


From: Ed G 
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Individual software programs for various 
digital modes
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, June 18, 2010, 10:43 AM

  

   To reiterate the original poster’s comment,  it is the COMPLEXITY  of the 
multi-mode programs that he was trying to avoid,  and with that  stated,  I 
agree with his thinking.   The multitude of buttons, tabs, logs,  maps, etc etc 
in such as Ham Radio Deluxe can be quite overwhelming when compared to the 
elegant simplicity of such as AirLink Express ,   if all you want to do is 
PSK31 or RTTY basic communications

 

  Ed   K7AAT

 

From: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradi o...@yahoogroups. com] 
On Behalf Of g4ilo
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 3:53 AM
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Individual software programs for various digital 
modes

 

But you are not forced to use any of the modes in a multimode program. I use 
Fldigi, but I use PSK most of the time, Olivia a little, MFSK and RTTY on rare 
occasions. I have never used any of the other modes. In the latest version I 
believe you can even hide the modes you aren't interested in so they aren't 
listed on the menu.

Julian, G4ILO

 



<><>

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Individual software programs for various digital modes????

[Ed G]

   To reiterate the original poster's comment,  it is the COMPLEXITY  of the
multi-mode programs that he was trying to avoid,  and with that  stated,  I
agree with his thinking.   The multitude of buttons, tabs, logs,  maps, etc
etc in such as Ham Radio Deluxe can be quite overwhelming when compared to
the elegant simplicity of such as AirLink Express ,   if all you want to do
is PSK31 or RTTY basic communications

 

  Ed   K7AAT

 

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of g4ilo
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 3:53 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Individual software programs for various digital
modes

 

  

But you are not forced to use any of the modes in a multimode program. I use
Fldigi, but I use PSK most of the time, Olivia a little, MFSK and RTTY on
rare occasions. I have never used any of the other modes. In the latest
version I believe you can even hide the modes you aren't interested in so
they aren't listed on the menu.

Julian, G4ILO

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Individual software programs for various digital modes????

[Ed G]

 

  Jon,  your argument is certainly a valid one,  but does not take into
account those hams who only want to work one or two digital modes,   PSK31
and RTTY being the primary choice.   I was in that boat once, too,  but am
just recently beginning to agree with your view on this and have become a
neophyte HRD user.  I've got a heck of a lot to learn on that program,  but
I now realize the benefits of doing so.

  Ed  K7AAT

 

 

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of JonP
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 1:49 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Individual software programs for various digital
modes

 

  

I would argue the other way.

When you go to individual software programs, it means that you have to learn
the user interface, set-up, and operation of a number of different programs
with a number of different interfaces and a number of different approaches
as to how software should be written/how software should interact with the
user.

When you go to a suite, there is consistency. You learn it once instead of
having to learn it four or five or six times.

I started with individual programs such as WinPSK, MMTTY, etc. It was a
pain. I was always doing something wrong because I had just come from a
different program that worked differently. And if I wanted to switch modes
because I saw a promising signal ...

I eventually stumbled on DM780. You only have to set up those modes that you
use, and setting up an individual mode in DM780 is no more difficult than
setting up that mode in an individual program. AND, the basic stuff requires
only one set up one time -- basics such as my rig, my call, how I want the
waterfall to look, and my macros. Especially my macros. It's very nice to
have consistency so that I know a particular macro will do the same thing
every time on every mode.

BTW, I don't do computer control of the rig.

Jon
KB1QBZ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>
, "JLA"  wrote:
>
> Hi All,
> 
> I've been lurking a while and I've not found a clear (to me anyway)
discussion of small, individual digital mode software programs, e.g., one
program for RTTY; one program for Olivia, etc, etc...



<><>

RE: [digitalradio] Individual software programs for various digital modes????

[Ed G]

 

  No problem.  I do it too.   I have historically preferred the simple
dedicated programs such as Johnne is looing for,  but recently have started
dabbling with HRD 5.0Beta.and DM780,  and quite frankly,  after only a week
or so of small exposure to it I do think I could come to really enjoy the
benefits of all those " zillions of whistles and bells "  . once I become
proficient with it.

 

73   Ed   K7AAT

 

 

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Jon Maguire
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 3:06 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Individual software programs for various digital
modes????

 

  

Ed,

My BAD :-) I glossed over "...small, individual...". I just think those two
suites are the best around and are worth a view.

73... Jon W1MNK

On 6/15/2010 5:42 PM, Ed G wrote: 

  

 

  Jon,

 

  Do you REALLY consider Ham Radio Deluxe/DM780 to be  "small, individual
digital mode software programs" ???   Because that is what Johnne is looking
for.   I consider HRD/DM780 to be software suites with a zillion bells and
whistles,  which is exactly what Johnne is NOT looking for.

 

  Ed   K7AAT

 

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Jon Maguire
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 2:29 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Individual software programs for various digital
modes

 

  

Johnne Lee,

2 that come to mind are Ham Radio Deluxe/DM780 and fldigi. Google/Bing them
and you won't be dissapointed. Both are outstanding and contain a plethora
of modes.

73... Jon W1MNK

On 6/15/2010 4:40 PM, JLA wrote: 

  

Hi All,

I've been lurking a while and I've not found a clear (to me anyway)
discussion of small, individual digital mode software programs, e.g., one
program for RTTY; one program for Olivia, etc, etc...

I have a 7200 and I am not at all interested in computer control of my rig.
Neither am I interested in a "software suite" with a zillion bells and
whistles that I will never, ever use. I am neither a contester nor DX-er. I
doubt very, very seriously if I will ever work any digital modes other than
Olivia and RTTY. 

My only current "digital" software program is MRP40 which is FB for QRQ CW
especially in bad/weak signal conditions. It is worth every penny to me as I
can not copy CW at the faster rates (25+ wpm.)

Any guidance/advice anyone has will be greatly appreciated.

73 de W1YB

Johnne Lee

RE: [digitalradio] Individual software programs for various digital modes????

[Ed G]

 

  Jon,

 

  Do you REALLY consider Ham Radio Deluxe/DM780 to be  "small, individual
digital mode software programs" ???   Because that is what Johnne is looking
for.   I consider HRD/DM780 to be software suites with a zillion bells and
whistles,  which is exactly what Johnne is NOT looking for.

 

  Ed   K7AAT

 

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Jon Maguire
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 2:29 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Individual software programs for various digital
modes

 

  

Johnne Lee,

2 that come to mind are Ham Radio Deluxe/DM780 and fldigi. Google/Bing them
and you won't be dissapointed. Both are outstanding and contain a plethora
of modes.

73... Jon W1MNK

On 6/15/2010 4:40 PM, JLA wrote: 

  

Hi All,

I've been lurking a while and I've not found a clear (to me anyway)
discussion of small, individual digital mode software programs, e.g., one
program for RTTY; one program for Olivia, etc, etc...

I have a 7200 and I am not at all interested in computer control of my rig.
Neither am I interested in a "software suite" with a zillion bells and
whistles that I will never, ever use. I am neither a contester nor DX-er. I
doubt very, very seriously if I will ever work any digital modes other than
Olivia and RTTY. 

My only current "digital" software program is MRP40 which is FB for QRQ CW
especially in bad/weak signal conditions. It is worth every penny to me as I
can not copy CW at the faster rates (25+ wpm.)

Any guidance/advice anyone has will be greatly appreciated.

73 de W1YB

Johnne Lee

RE: [digitalradio] Individual software programs for various digital modes????

[Ed G]

  Johnne,

 

  I would suggest you check out AirLink Express if you want a simple,
intuitive, and elegant program for PSK31.   While this program also does
RTTY and CW,  I find it far more simple and easy to use than any other
program I have used, including Digipan.   Unfortunately I do not think
anyone is writing simple programs for the other more esoteric digital modes.

 

Ed  K7AAT

 

 

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of JLA
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 1:40 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Individual software programs for various digital
modes

 

  

Hi All,

I've been lurking a while and I've not found a clear (to me anyway)
discussion of small, individual digital mode software programs, e.g., one
program for RTTY; one program for Olivia, etc, etc...

I have a 7200 and I am not at all interested in computer control of my rig.
Neither am I interested in a "software suite" with a zillion bells and
whistles that I will never, ever use. I am neither a contester nor DX-er. I
doubt very, very seriously if I will ever work any digital modes other than
Olivia and RTTY. 

My only current "digital" software program is MRP40 which is FB for QRQ CW
especially in bad/weak signal conditions. It is worth every penny to me as I
can not copy CW at the faster rates (25+ wpm.)

Any guidance/advice anyone has will be greatly appreciated.

73 de W1YB

Johnne Lee



<><>

RE: [digitalradio] New SCS Email Program For Pactor

[Ed G]

 

  Oh great!   Those who have complained about the WinLink system Pactor
interference haven't seen anything yet!Once this new product gets into
the hands of every ham who wants to operate his own private email server we
could see a huge increase in Pactor messaging stations all over the place!

 

   At least that's my initial take on the situation. I'm an EmComm WL2K
user and have no personal problem with this but I'm sure others will.

 

   Ed  K7AAT

 

 

 

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Andy obrien
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 12:54 AM
To: digitalradio
Subject: [digitalradio] New SCS Email Program For Pactor

 

  

FYI,

Andy K3UK

-- Forwarded message --
From: vk4jrc 

  

Hi Everyone,

Not sure IF anyone in the group has seen this, could be interesting!

http://www.scs-ptc.com/downloads/scsmail

Can be run in Client or Server mode, and gives a chance for people to run a
private Email network, outside WinLink, Winmor or SailMail.

73,

Jack VK4JRC



<><>

RE: [digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal

[Ed G]

   

 

  You have repeatedly used the term,  " Clog Up ".   Have you listened to
60M at all?   I rarely hear ANY ham traffic on any of the 5 channels
whenever I look.   Given the light usage already in place,  I do not see an
issue with adding digital modes.

Ed   K7AAT

=


Can it be 'justified' to 'clog up' a new band with allowing ANY digital
mode, 
and I am also including digitized voice into this, just to have it be there?

Why not use what is already staged and developed and on the bands that
already 
have the allocations?

I personally don't see any reason to 'clog up' any more frequency
allocations 
just to have something sitting there 

Re: [digitalradio] Universal M-8000--Dinosaur in Today's World?

[Ed Pusey]

True, the M-8000 is old. I would suggest that it buying it or not depends on
whether you want to play around with it for what it does still do well:
SITOR/AMTOR, CW, WEFAX, GMDSS, PACTOR, and ACARS for example. For most of
those you can find free decoders that will cover them, but it is still fun
to use. If you happen to have interest in Russian stuff, the Cyrillic
feature is neat, but I have to confess to not having used that feature in a
decade. Used to be great for Russian CW and RTTY! If you do buy it,
hopefully it is one of the later versions, like v7.5; that will have more
systems --that aren't used anymore.  :-)

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:06 AM, wayner  wrote:

>
>
> I have a chance to buy a Universal M-8000 decoder from a friend for $100.
> Is it worth it, . . .
>
> Wayner
>
>  
>



-- 
Ed Pusey

esp...@gmail.com

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"

[Ed G]

  Using your same logic below,  it could well be determined that hams who 
partake regularly in 75M evening nets,  or even regular QSO, etc,  should take 
their conversations to FCC Part D  Citizen's band,  or other service ,   
because those communications on a regular basis could be easily furnished 
through those alternative services too.

  I know,  its stupid,  but it also carries the same logic as the below 
example .

K7AAT 
  Adding to Skip's remarks, I will point out it is considered almost an
  indecency among the daily-position-report hams to mention 97.113(a)(5)
  of the FCC rules, which states:

  (a) No amateur station shall transmit:
  ...
  (5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be
  furnished alternatively through other radio services.

  That means that a US-licensed ham violates the FCC regs when s/he
  regularly transmits vessel position reports, which could be
  transmitted using the maritime mobile service, over ham frequencies.
  Not being a lawyer, I am not qualified to say whether a fixed ham
  station which received those messages and forwards them to a web page
  is also in violation, though my unqualified guess is "no".

[digitalradio] Airlink Express / SignaLink USB question

[Ed G]

  Is there anyone here who is successfully using Airlink Express with Windows 
7?   I use a SignaLinkUSB sound card interface successfuly with RMS Express,  
Digipan, and some other applications,  all using the VOX keying method for my 
radio.   BUT  I can not get Airlink Express to key my radio with the VOX in the 
SignaLink.   I have discovered that even though in Airlink Express Setup I have 
selected the USB audio codec for both Tx and Rx,   I find that the new Windows 
7 Volume Mixer does not recognize the Airlink Express application when I select 
the USB Audio Codec for speaker.  ( It does show Digipan and other applications 
just fine.)   What the volume mixer does show is AirLink Express under a 
different Speaker selection   RealTek Digital Output,  which I don't use.

   Anyone else have this problem in Windows 7?

   Ed   K7AAT

[digitalradio] Re: More RSID - PLEASE!

[Ed Hekman]

I was monitoring PSK on 20 meters today with DM780 V5.0 Beta when a window pops 
up in the lower right corner of the screen that says, "MFSK32 transmission on 
2632 Hz.   Click here to select."  I had never heard of MFSK32 before so I 
clicked on the window and immediately found KN4SA calling CQ.  I responded and 
we had a nice QSO in a new mode I had never heard of before.  The speed was 
just about right for us but I was very surprised when he sent a picture of his 
2 element quad embedded in the message.

Later while monitoring Olivia 16/500 the window popped up again saying, "Olivia 
16/500 transmission on 1650 Hz.  Click here to select."  I could see nothing on 
the waterfall and could not hear anything but when I hit the select option I 
found VK2AYD calling CQ right in the middle of the waterfall.  A few minutes 
later after turning the antenna around in his direction we connected and had a 
very nice QSO.

I am convinced of the value (need) for using RSID for the less recognizable 
modes.  Now I need an SDR radio with 96KHz bandwidth. - Hi

Great ideas and implementation, Patrick, Simon and others.  I am hooked.

Ed
WB6YTE

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Simon \(HB9DRV\)"  wrote:
>
> I think it'll take up to a year - then we'll be rocking.
> 
> Also when we use SDR more there will be a big improvement.
> 
> Simon Brown, HB9DRV
> www.ham-radio-deluxe.com
>   - Original Message - 
>   From: Tony 
> 
>   I think we're making progress with RSID Dave, it's just slow to catch on. 
> Have a look at the RSID video in the file section of this reflector.
>

[digitalradio] Re: Double Entries on Waterfall

[Ed Hekman]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Vojtech Bubnik"  wrote:
>
> Hi Ralph.
> 
> The second or multiple received streams may be caused by a non-linearity 
> somewhere between his computer and your computer. It may be his sound card, 
> his TX, your RX or your sound card. Yes, I experienced it also. The "ghost" 
> signals are of much lower amplitude though, so they are easily recognized and 
> ignored.
> 
> If I were you, I would first verify, whether you do not overdrive your sound 
> card. Secondly I would adjust attenuator to just get some slight atmospheric 
> noise in your receiver. This way you will maximize your receiver's dynamic 
> range. If you still get some ghost signals, it may be a good time to upgrade 
> your sound card.
> 
> 73, Vojtech OK1IAK

I agree with this.  Nonlinearities in the audio stages can create multiple 
copies of the signal in the audio band.  Nonlinearities in the RF stages would 
normally create copies of the signal at multiples of the RF frequency for a 
single tone signal.  

I understand that the Collins KWM-2 creates a CW signal by modulating the 
carrier with an audio tone.  The frequency of the audio tone is set around 1700 
Hz so harmonics caused by nonlinearity in the audio stages would be outside the 
audio band.

With my TS-2000 many ghost signals can often be seen.  Not only are frequency 
multiples of the signal seen but also a weak signal in the presence of a strong 
signal can often be seen equally spaced on the opposite side of the strong 
signal.  I suspect this is due to the nonlinearities associated with 
quantization of the 12-bit A/D conversion.  Even when a narrow bandwidth is 
selected, copies of the signal can be seen well outside the passband of the 
narrow filter.  Ghost signals are seen much less frequently with my radios with 
analog filtering.

Ed
WB6YTE

[digitalradio] Re: Digital modes and old husband's tales

[Ed Hekman]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien"  wrote:
>
> The replies to Ralph's question about audio levels appear to be sound advice
> and certainly in keeping with what has been advised since sound card digital
> modes burst upon the scene.  I wonder how accurate it is though?I have
> seen a few serious hams argue that "no ALC" is not really the case, that
> some ALC can be OK.  I have also seen mention that the no ALC issue applies
> to some modes (like PSK) but not to others like (JT65A).  I also wonder
> about the half-power advice that some advise.  With my homebrewed interface,
> I could never get much above 40 watts before some ALC began to show.  When I
> switched to a commerical interface with good isolation (Microkeyer by
> Microham) I can almost always get 100 watts output without any ALC action.
> I have not received any negative reports about my signal .  If I run 100
> watts SSB for phone contacts, why would I not want to do the same for
> digital modes assuming the signal was "clean" ?  .  Yes, I would agree I
> should not run 100 watts if communication was possible with less power,  but
> I don't think a brief  PSK CQ at 100 watts is going to do much more harm to
> my finals than a 3 minute ragchew at 50 watts, phone .  Right ?
> 
> Comments ?
> -- 
> Andy K3UK

Andy,

There are some interesting figures on this web site, 
http://f1ult.free.fr/DIGIMODES/MULTIPSK/digimodesF6CTE_en,
 about some of the technical details of the different digital modes.  One 
interesting specification is the average to peak power ratio of the waveform.  
For PSK the number is 0.79.  This means that increasing the average output 
power level above 79 watts will begin to show some clipping on a transmitter 
designed for 100 watts output peak.  The average to peak ratio is a statistical 
average over some period of time.  There may be some short periods of time when 
the peak signal exceeds this ratio and begins to exhibit some objectionable 
distortion that may cause broadening of the spectrum, increased IMD and reduced 
readability.

For the FSK modes such as RTTY and for some of the MFSK modes the average to 
peak ratio is 1.0.  For these modes you can transmit at the full power rating 
of the transmitter without causing any distortion of the signal.

The effect of ALC action on the linearity of the signal will depend on the 
design of the ALC.  If the time constant of the ALC is fast enough to follow 
the envelope of the signal then it effectively produces non-linear compression 
of the signal which causes distortion of the waveform.  If the time constant is 
long then the ocassional peaks will cause some gain reduction in the TX chain 
but it will be mostly linear for everything less than those ocassional peaks.

The error rate vs SNR for digital modes has a very steep curve with a sharp 
cutoff of readability only for constant steady state noise conditions.  For HF 
conditions with QSB of 20 dB to 30 dB and static crashes, a 1 dB difference in 
average SNR may only mean the difference of 10% (or less) error rate or 
readability.  So increasing the power from 40 to 60 watts (1.76 dB) would cause 
only marginal difference in the readibility.

This is my somewhat simplistic understanding of the subject.  Some of the 
figures given here are only qualitative examples based on my experience with 
testing digital communications system error rates under standardized channel 
noise and fading conditions.

I made some PSK contacts last week runing 1/2 watt of power on 30m and 20m.  
Now I feel a little guilty about running 25 - 50 watts the rest of the time.

Ed
WB6YTE

[digitalradio] Re: The best of all features - SdR

[Ed Hekman]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Lindecker"  wrote:
>
> Hello Ed and all,
> 
> For information, with the last version of Multipsk (4.14), you can decode 48 
> KHz (for standard sound cards) up to 192 KHz (with specific sound cards) if 
> you have a SdR.
> 
> Note: with standard sound cards, the noise floor must be around the 10th bit 
> (about 1/1000 of the full scale), so the level at the SdR output must not 
> too much low.
> 
> 73
> Patrick

Patrick,

This sounds like it is exactly what I am looking for.  I would like to be able 
to operate digital modes with the SDR without using the VAC program.

I am trying it now but haven't figured out how to use it yet.  It looks like 
the RX from the radio and the speaker output use one sound card and the TX 
output and mic use the second sound card.

I tried to select a sampling frequency of 12KHz but now it reports an error and 
does not allow me to correct the error.

I will continue experimenting with it.

Ed
WB6YTE

[digitalradio] Re: PC/Soundcard requirements for Softrock/SDR ?

[Ed Hekman]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien  wrote:
>
> >
> > I am probably more of an observer than most. I would like to be able to
> > monitor activity on all bands all the time. For less than $20 per band, a
> > softrock receiver kit can be purchased that monitors up to 96 KHz of
> > spectrum with a relatively inexpensive sound card. Unfortunately I don't
> > have the space or budget for all the computers and montors that would be
> > needed for this.
> >
> > Ed
> >
> 
> Thanks Ed, glad you are enjoying DX Lab Suite.  I wonder what PC and
> soundcard capability ones needs to run softrock  and similar SDR cards
> ?
> 
> Andy K3UK

Andy,

I am in the middle of the learning process now but here is a little bit of what 
I have learned.

I have tried Rocky SDR software on 3 computers, a 2.8 GHz Celeron cpu with 
WinXP, a 2.0 GHz dual core E2180 Pentium with WinXP and a quad core Q8200 cpu 
with Vista.  Even on the Celeron cpu it ran fine by itself but it struggled a 
bit when DM780 was added to it.  The dual core machine ran fine with Rocky and 
MultiPSK and DM780 - and a few other programs.  The Vista machine of course 
runs with very low cpu load but has serious limitations on the software that 
can be installed.

I unsuccessfully tried PowerSDR on a couple of the machines.  SDRadio runs fine 
on the dual core machine.  I haven't tried it on the Celeron cpu.  I tried the 
M0GKG software on the dual core machine but couldn't get it to recognize any of 
the sound cards.

The minimum requirements for the sound card are stereo line input and 48KHz 
sampling rate.  This allows you to view a 48KHz wide spectrum.  I found some 
inexpensive, used, Creative Soundblaster external USB sound cards with 24 bit, 
96KHz sampling that work very well.  I haven't made any sensitivity 
measurements but they seem to be adaquate at least for the lower bands.  
Unfortunately on the dual core WinXP machine, Rocky doesn't recognize this card 
although the other programs do.

Two sound cards are required - one for the SDR radio RX and TX, and one for the 
audio input and output (speaker and mic).  For CW, paddle inputs are included 
on the board that go into a serial port on the computer which does the CW 
keying as well as the PTT.

For digital modes, a connection is required from the SDR software audio input 
and output and the digital mode software.  This can be a third sound card or a 
Virtual Audio Cable program (VAC).  I have not been able to get this to work on 
either the Vista computer or the dual core WinXP machine.  On the WinXP 
machine, Rocky did not recognize the VAC software although other programs did.  
In addition, MultiPSK 4.14 crashed after VAC was installed.

Windows Vista has serious limitations for the software installations.  The 
driver signing is enforced so drivers that do not have the Micro$oft ble$$ing 
cannot be installed.  That includes the USB to I2C driver for the DDS chip on 
the Softrock that enables the center frequency to be set by the software and 
the VAC software.  The VAC web site has instructions for getting around this 
limitation but after following those instructions the computer freezes on 
startup.  So at the moment I have a very high-powered, nearly new, dead 
computer.

MultiPSK does have SDR capability built-in but I haven't tried it yet.  Since 
my interest is in operating digital modes that may be just what I need.  That 
will be my next area of exploration.

This may be more information than you needed or wanted but I hope it is helpful.

Ed
WB6YTE

[digitalradio] Re: The best of all features

[Ed Hekman]

Andy,

I have started to become acquainted with the DX Labs suite recently since I 
switched to the DX Keeper logging program.  On your recommendation I have 
installed the entire DX Labs suite and I agree it does have a very wide range 
of features.  The DXView, Pathfinder, PropView and SpotCollector programs are 
very useful for monitoring the bands to find the openings and to get 
information on the stations worked or heard.  The WinWarbler also appears to 
have all of the features of interest to me.  I think it is amazing that one 
person, Dave, AA6YQ, can produce this package.  And he responds very quickly to 
all questions about the package.  It is too bad that Microsoft is not that 
responsive.

I am probably more of an observer than most.  I would like to be able to 
monitor activity on all bands all the time.  For less than $20 per band, a 
softrock receiver kit can be purchased that monitors up to 96 KHz of spectrum 
with a relatively inexpensive sound card.  Unfortunately I don't have the space 
or budget for all the computers and montors that would be needed for this.

Ed
 

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien  wrote:
>
> Many good points Ed, thanks for taking the time to write your
> comments.  I would like to add that an overlooked application is
> Winwarbler.  Winwarbler only does RTTY (AFSK and FSK) plus BPSK and
> QPSK 31,63, and 125, but it has in my opinion the best features.  It's
> multi-decoding capabilities and layout are superb.  When intergrated
> with DX keeper and Spotcollector, it is peerless.
> 
> 
> 
> Andy K3UK
> 
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 4:11 AM, Ed Hekman wrote:
> >
> >
> 
> > fldigi comes the closest to replicating the simplicity and ease of use of
> > Digipan but it adds many other modes and features. The ability to open the
> > panoramic window and the logbook separately from the main QSO screen is very
> > nice since I like to be able to decode other transmissions while I am in a
> > QSO. The radio interface is a nice bonus that was setup quite easily for a
> > couple radios. The capability to automatically post to PSK Reporter is a
> > nice feature but I haven't been successful with that yet. The capability to
> > integrate with DXKeeper with a 3rd party bridge is also nice but I haven't
> > succeded with that yet either. And I think the flarq program greatly expands
> > the usefulness to methods of operating beyond the normal one on one QSO.
> > fldigi has been the primary program here since last fall until I acquired a
> > more powerful computer that could more easily handle DM780. One very nice
> > feature of DM780 that I use frequently is the capability to hit a button and
> > have the radio and the program switch the radio frequency and the audio
> > frequency to put the desired signal in the center of the radios narrow band
> > filter.
> >
> > That is a brief synopsys of the highlights of each of the programs for me.
> >
> > Thing to look forward to:
> > Panoramic screen decoding over bandwidths of 24 KHz up to 192 KHz.
> > More SOMR (single operator, multiple radio) capability.
> > Better integration with logging packages across the various programs to a
> > common database on the network.
> >
>

[digitalradio] The best of all features

[Ed Hekman]

It looks like the thread on MixW has run the course but I wanted to make a few 
comments about what I felt were the best features of each of the programs that 
I have used.

I started with Digipan and stayed with it for over 5 years because it was 
simple to setup and use.  The capability to receive in panoramic mode and carry 
on a QSO at the same time has become very important to my style of operating.  
I grew very dependent on the capability to use the F1 key to bring up the 
qrz.com page for the call sign entered in the log.  Unfortunately I experienced 
some crashes with the last version that were too frequent to be ignored.  That 
and the lack of other modes motivated me to try some of the other programs.  
The programs I have tried so far include HRD/DM780, MixW, fldigi and MultiPSK.  

MixW was the next program I used but never as much as Digipan.  The absence of 
a panoramic decoder prevented me from adopting as the only or primary program.  
It is nice that I was able to configure the functions keys to be the same that 
I had become accustomed to with Digipan.  And one uniquie feature of MixW that 
I have used many times is the capability to select many transmissions to 
monitor - each in separate windows - and to be able to select a different 
transmissionj mode for each of those windows.  It is not as straightforward as 
it could be but it can be done.

DM780 was the next program that I spent some getting to know.  Limited computer 
power did cause some problems when DM780 was running concurrently with my 
weather station program, Weather Display.  Weather Display would crash very 
consistently with significant activity in DM780 and even more quickly when 
iexplorer was running.  But now with a much more capable PC I have been 
exploring other very nice features of DM780.  The capability to push a button 
and have the radio shift frequency to put the signal of interest in the center 
of the narrow passband is extremely valuable for operating in crowded band 
conditions.  The capability to carry on a QSO with the screen operating in 
panoramic mode is very important to me.  The automation posting of spots to PSK 
Reporter and the automatic uploading of QSOs to eQSL and LOTW is very nice. The 
one drawback for me is the inability to assign operations to the function keys 
to match the configurations used with Digipan, Mixw, fldigi and MultiPSK.

I dabbled with MultiPSK over the years but began using in daily last year when 
I discovered that it had the capability to capture call signs spotted.  With a 
utility from Sholto, KE7HPV, this is being used to automatically post call 
signs dexcoded to the web page, www.hamspots.net.  I also did some experiments 
with the ALE400 mode with good success.

fldigi comes the closest to replicating the simplicity and ease of use of 
Digipan but it adds many other modes and features.  The ability to open the 
panoramic window and the logbook separately from the main QSO screen is very 
nice since I like to be able to decode other transmissions while I am in a QSO. 
 The radio interface is a nice bonus that was setup quite easily for a couple 
radios.  The capability to automatically post to PSK Reporter is a nice feature 
but I haven't been successful with that yet.  The capability to integrate with 
DXKeeper with a 3rd party bridge is also nice but I haven't succeded with that 
yet either.  And I think the flarq program greatly expands the usefulness to 
methods of operating beyond the normal one on one QSO.  fldigi has been the 
primary program here since last fall until I acquired a more powerful computer 
that could more easily handle DM780.  One very nice feature of DM780 that I use 
frequently is the capability to hit a button and have the radio and the program 
switch the radio frequency and the audio frequency to put the desired signal in 
the center of the radios narrow band filter.

That is a brief synopsys of the highlights of each of the programs for me.

Thing to look forward to:
Panoramic screen decoding over bandwidths of 24 KHz up to 192 KHz.
More SOMR (single operator, multiple radio) capability.
Better integration with logging packages across the various programs to a 
common database on the network.

It is quite late here now so anything I say from now on will probably be 
nonsense so I will terminate this for now and hope that others will offer their 
highlights and lowlights of the currently available software and their 
wishlists for the next generation of radio software.

Thanks,
Ed
WB6YTE

[digitalradio] Re: QRV 14074.0 ALE-400 FAE

[Ed Hekman]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Lindecker"  wrote:
>
> Hello Ed,
> 
> Nice report.
> 
> >the beginning and increased towards the end until the connection was lost.
> After one minute without possibility to acknowledge a frame, the ionospheric 
> conditions are supposed to be very bad and the disconnection is automatic. I 
> don't think useful to wait more than one minute.
> 
> > One feature request: Would it be feasible to make the panoramic display 
> > active while using the RX/TX window for a QSO - possibly in another mode?
> It would be possible but complex...the best is to start another occurence of 
> Multipsk on the same PC (leaving the serial ressource for the occurence 
> susceptible to be switched in transmission).
> 
> 73
> Patrick

I hadn't thought of trying multiple instances of MultiPSK but I have used other 
programs concurrently - MixW, fldigi and DM780.  Actually DM780 is running 
continuously on the same computer posting call signs on 30 meters to PSK 
Reporter.  

There are features in each of those 4 programs that I would like to see 
combined into a single package. - Hi  I have just about finished setting up all 
4 programs to use the same logging program - DXKeeper - with the same database 
file - from 2 different computers.  Thanks for building that support into 
MultiPSK.

Ed

[digitalradio] Re: Really beating the AGC issue with PSK ?

[Ed Hekman]

Andy,

I also have a TS-2000.  Are you using the Packet filter menu, 50A?  This can 
set the bandwidth down to about 100Hz.  The DSP on the TS-2000 is not the best 
but I find it quite effective most of the time.  It does produce a lot of ghost 
signals and aliases.  The 12-bit DSP probably limits the IF dynamic range to 
less than 70 dB.  The TS-2000 also does not have the best front end dynamic 
range.  It is very rare to find signals with more than 60 dB difference in 
signal strength in the passband so I find this adequate for almost all the 
operating I do.  The notch filter also works quite well although I haven't used 
it on the TS-2000.

I also use an IC-735 with a 250Hz CW filter.  Some modification was required to 
enable the CW filter in SSB mode.  This doesn't have the problem of ghosts and 
aliases of the DSP filtering but it is a bit wider.

For the best performance, the narrow filter has to be as close to the antenna 
input as possible in the circuit.  A 100Hz wide roofing filter would do the job 
but I haven't heard of anybody installing one.

Ed
WB6YTE

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien  wrote:
>
> From time to time we have had discussions here about the problem with
> PSK (and other modes) when a strong stations appears to grab the
> waterfall and wipe out all the other stations within a 2-3 Khz range.
> Because of this phenomenon, when I purchased a new rig,  I looked for
> one that could have AGC totally off (when needed) and one that can
> employ narrow DSP filtering.  I must say that I have not really solved
> this issue .  I can see a marginal difference with AGC turned off but
> strong signals still essentially desensitize other stations in the
> waterfall.  The DSP features do better and I can get rid of the
> phenomena by turning to a narrow filter.  However this does not help
> if the offending station is with 300 - 500 Hz ( a lot when dealing
> with narrow digital modes).
> 
> Does anyone have any advice on how to once and for all solve this
> issue?  My rig is a TS2000
> 
> Andy K3UK
>

[digitalradio] Re: QRV 14074.0 ALE-400 FAE

[Ed Hekman]

Tony,

Sorry I didn't have time to stop and chat.  I copied your QSO with John, VE5MU, 
from beginning to end while I was eating dinner and reading the mail.  You were 
strong at the beginning but John was stronger at the end.  The repeat rate was 
around 2:1 at the beginning and increased towards the end until the connection 
was lost. 

Sholto and I worked each other some time ago with this mode.  It works quite 
well for a chat like that.

Patrick, F6CTE,

Thank you for your very generous contribution to the community.  MultiPSK is 
ideal for those of us who like to experiment with various modes.  

MultiPSK is running 24/7 here capturing call signs on 30 meters PSK.  I had 
been looking for a program that could capture call signs when the 30mdg group 
asked me to spot for them last year and pointed me to MultiPSK.

One feature request: Would it be feasible to make the panoramic display active 
while using the RX/TX window for a QSO - possibly in another mode?

Ed
WB6YTE

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Tony  wrote:
>
> Still QRV...
> 
> 14074.0 USB - ALE-400 FAE -- ARQ CHAT MODE...
> 
> Time is 0245z...
> 
> Tony -K2MO
> 
> 
> > All,
> >
> > Anyone care for an ARQ chat? I'm QRV ALE-400 FAE...
> >
> > 14074.0 USB + 1600Hz -- beaming west. 
> 
> > Tony -K2MO
> >
>

Re: [digitalradio] Sunair RT 9000A Help

[Ed]

At 04:56 PM 12/12/2008, you wrote:

Hi Ed,
   Sorry if this was not the place to ask this 
question, as the RT 9000a is a digital HF

Transceiver I thought  that this would be a good place to ask.

73 Phillip



  I wasn't trying to "flame" you,  but I do think you might get a 
better response on   manual_excha...@yahoogroups.com .


   Good luck.

  Ed


Dial Broadband has arrived Nationwide! Up to 5 times faster than traditional dialup connections from $13.33/month! See the demo for yourself at http://www.BigValley.net";>www.BigValley.net 

Re: [digitalradio] Sunair RT 9000A Help

[Ed]

At 03:32 PM 12/12/2008, you wrote:

Hi,
   I am looking for  a service manual or any good source of information
on the above Radio.

  Having just picked up 5 of these transceivers and 6 remote heads RCU 9310B
from an auction here .

Have muddled around and have 2 working but a manual etc would be great.




   Rather than asking your question on this digital radio 
forum,  you might get a better response if you post to a different 
Yahoo discussion group such as  "  Manual_Exchange   "..


. . . .  or,  you could simply contact the company 
at  http://www.sunairelectronics.comand ask them about a manual.


   Good luck on your search.


   Ed


Dial Broadband has arrived Nationwide! Up to 5 times faster than traditional dialup connections from $13.33/month! See the demo for yourself at http://www.BigValley.net";>www.BigValley.net 

Re: [digitalradio] Odd noise in receiver

[Ed]

At 11:46 AM 11/28/2008, you wrote:

Wonder if anyone has encountered this type of noise. It's a raspy,
pulsating sound. It lasts 10 seconds, is silent for 5, then starts again
The pulses are about 5 per second.

It's showing up on a lot of bands. Right now I have it at about
21.048, but have heard it on several ham frequencies.

We haven't added any new electronics in the house at all. We are in
a rural setting, with the nearest neighbor several hundred feet away. We
do have cable TV and cable internet, and I wonder if this might be a
"test birdie" I've heard mentioned in the past. It seems to run 24/7,
and just started up within the last few days.



   Does it go away when you remove the antenna?  That will pretty 
much eliminate the likelyhood its a birdie.


   Lots of cheap consumer stuff emits RF, unfortunately.. Maybe 
someones'  fancy Christmas Lights half a mile away.



   Ed


Dial Broadband has arrived Nationwide! Up to 5 times faster than traditional dialup connections from $13.33/month! See the demo for yourself at http://www.BigValley.net";>www.BigValley.net 

[digitalradio] Re: How to choose Olivia tone/bandwidth parameters -- an idea

[Ed Hekman]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Simon Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> You see the bandwidth already - so why not just OL + number of tones?
> 
> I don't think users will like a lookup table.
> 
> Simon Brown, HB9DRV

How about sending a set of parallel tones for 1 second so they can be 
easily counted?  It may not be practical to actually count them when 
the number is large (>16) but with a little practice it should be easy 
to recognize the number of tones from the appearance.

Ed
WB6YTE

[digitalradio] Re: CWType Using Buxcomm

[Ed Hekman]

Dennis,

I am not familiar with the Rascal with CW cables but it sounds like the 
CW cable is plugged into the paddle jack instead of the straight key 
jack.

I use a Rascal for digital modes with the TS-2000.  But for CW I use a 
separate com port with a homebrew interface (transistor, resistor and 
diode) connected to the straight key input jack.  I have used cwtype 
and MixW for CW with this configuration.

Let me know if you have more questions.

Ed
WB6YTE

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis Wyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> BlankI'm still experimenting with various cw programs and have in the 
past used CWType with my Alinco DX77 withgood results.  Currently I am 
trying it with my KWTS2000 and having a bit of difficulty.  I'm using 
the Buxcomm Rascal MarkVGLX with the cw cables.  When I set the program 
up I'm placing the Pitt to none, the key to DTR, the COM-Port selection 
to COM-Port (via Windows API) and the COM-Port to COM4 (Which I'm setup 
to use).  Placing the rig in the CW mode and pressing the VOX button on 
it will only transmit dits.  An example is the word TEST; it will 
transmit  dit-dit  dit  dit-dit-dit  dit-dit.  I am using the 1/4 inch 
plug.  Using the 1/8 inch plug causes a continuous transmitted signal 
without keying the rig, automatically sends a signal.  Does anyone have 
any ideas on using this interface for CW.  Maybe the Rascal MarkVGLX 
wasn't meant to be used with the KWTS2000.  
> 
> 73, Dennis Wyman (KA6GDT)
>

RE: [digitalradio] Icom Data Mode / ACC(1) Socket?

[Ed Richardson]

On my 746Pro, audio appears to be present at the ACC1 socket in all
modes. Only the front panel mic audio is disabled in the USB-D and
LSB-D modes.

Ed - VE4EAR

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Tony
Sent: April 7, 2008 3:43 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Icom Data Mode / ACC(1) Socket?

All,

Can anyone tell me if the ACC(1) socket audio on an Icom rig is disabled

when the rig is taken out of data mode? I was told that USB-D / LSB-D 
must be selected for the ACC socket to work when using the port for 
sound card modes.

Thanks,

Tony -K2MO 




Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
http://www.obriensweb.com/sked

Check our other Yahoo Groups
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
Yahoo! Groups Links

[digitalradio] Re: 10 Tips for the PSK31 Digital Mode

[Ed Hekman]

Frank,

I was able to make a small modification to my TS-530 to enable the 
use of the CW filter in SSB mode.  It works very well although 500Hz 
is still quite wide for PSK31.

I made a similar modification to an IC-735 to use the 250Hz CW filter 
in SSB mode although that was a bit more complicated.  

Let me know if you would like me to send the instructions.

Ed 
WB6YTE

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Tooner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rein Couperus  wrote:
> 
> > ... I have visited several hams who could hear MORE than twice
> > the stations after switching from a 2.5 kHz (panoramic) to 250 Hz
> > filter.
> 
> While on the subject of filters, my current setup allows me to 
narrow
> my SSB signal down to 500 Hz.  Maxed out, the pass band is about 2.7
> kHz, (3.6 on CW Wide.)
> 
> I have no optional filters installed, so I've been thinking of 
adding
> one or two (I think YK-88CN and YG-455CN).
> 
> I like the idea of having a narrower VBT of 250 Hz (-6 dB) to 500 Hz
> (-60 dB) with the YG-455CN filter. BUT, it seems that's for the CW
> Narrow mode switch position.  Will that do anything all all for SSB?
> 
> It's a Kenwood hybrid (TS-830S).  If a CW Narrow filter isn't going 
to
> help my digital modes RX, then is there some other filter I can add
> that will give the improvement you've stated above?
> 
> I've heard of a YG-88S, but don't see any mention of it in the 
manual.
>  Looks like http://www.qth.com/inrad/ has some in stock.
> 
> Any suggestions?  Well, other than buy a new radio! 8)
> 
> Frank, K2NCC
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Oregon Governor Allocates $250,000 for Digital Communications Network

[Ed]

>Not knocking the volunteers for sure.  I do have a question.  How come
>the money wasn't invested in public safety equipment using public
>safety NTIA assigned frequencies to do the same thing?


  the cost involved to purchase 
commercial equipment, antennas, peripherals, labor to install, and money to 
implement training for multiple employees,  for every county in the 
State. That $250.000 would be a drop in the bucket.   The State is 
getting one heck of a deal by providing this equipment to the local ham 
ARES/RACES county groups and letting those hams provide all the rest of the 
necessities.


  Ed   K7AAT

Re: [digitalradio] PSK250

[Ed]

   Andrew,

Thank you for the info.   It was exactly what I was looking for.

   Ed  K7AAT


Dial Broadband has arrived Nationwide! Up to 5 times faster than traditional 
dialup connections from $13.33/month! See the demo for yourself at http://www.BigValley.net";>www.BigValley.net 

[digitalradio] PSK250

[Ed]

 I am trying to find more information on PSK250 but there seems to be a 
considerable lack of information when I do a Google search.  I'd like to 
know some of its specifications and what the effective "baud" rate is with 
a good HF signal when that mode is implemented.

 Can anyone point me to a good source of info on PSK 250?


 Ed K7AAT


Dial Broadband has arrived Nationwide! Up to 5 times faster than traditional 
dialup connections from $13.33/month! See the demo for yourself at http://www.BigValley.net";>www.BigValley.net 

[digitalradio] Re: Building a USB Sound Interface

[Ed Hekman]

Kevin,

An article was posted on eham.net last year that my interest you.

http://www.eham.net/articles/14023

This describes a simple interface using a small USB hub, a USB sound 
card and a USB to serial converter.  This could probably be 
disassembled and repackaged into one small box.

Ed
WB6YTE

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Gmail - Home" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Hi All,
> 
> Strange question I am sure, but please bare with me.
> 
> I like to build a lot of my own gear, allows me to learn new things 
along the way, it also saves a heap of money considering the prices 
some of the interfaces are costing.
> I have so far been using a soundcard and direct connection to my TS-
480S/AT, with a small interface.
> Now I want to go a little further and build a slightly better one, 
but I want to build one with a usb connection so it makes a quick 
changeover.
> I have looked through Google with little success, so I am asking 
does anyone know where one could find information on building a USB 
sound w/interface?
> If not I will have to stick with my current interface.
> 
> Thanks and A Merry Christmas/Season Greetings from Sunny NZ.
> 
> Kevin, ZL1KFM.
>

[digitalradio] Re: The sorry state of VHF/UHF Packet

[Ed Woodrick]

So I'll add a few more cents.

Packet died in the US because it was too popular for what it could do. 
The number of For Sale messages and announcements that were sent 
worldwide just overwhelmed users and BBSs. It came to the point that 
there was too much content and nothing that you wanted to read.

And while there were faster networks, 1200 bps was the standard and it 
was slow. And it gets real slow when you add other 1200 baud nodes or 
digipeaters to the path. And BTW, you will never even get 1200 bps 
sustained throughput, as the turn-around for most radios is abysmal.

And in this entire thread, I'm surprised that I haven't seen any 
comments about D-STAR! 960 bps is built into every radio and the ID-1 
can do 128 kbps. It's not AX.25, but it is packet digital data. It's 
pretty cool to put two ID-1s back to back and watch the amount of data 
that can be transfered. And since the ID-1 have Ethernet jacks, that 
means that you can do any Internet protocol that you want.

[digitalradio] Re: OFDM Proposal

[Ed Hekman]

Rud,

I would really enjoy hearing some discussion on the use of OFDM on 
HF.  I work on an OFDM project and have an understanding of how it 
works although I am not a system designer.  I have also tried OFDM 
with HamPal (digital SSTV) and WinDRM (digital voice) and it seems to 
me that it offers a lot of potential for improving performance with 
HF multipath fading.  To stimulate some discussion I would like to 
ask some questions for the experts in the field.

The limitation that is often experienced with HamPal is that the 
probability of getting a complete file through without errors is 
small so it usually requires a manual request to fill in the holes.  
Looking at the waterfall display it is apparent that frequently there 
are transient holes in the spectrum due to multipath fading.  Could a 
higher higher success rate without the fill requests be achieved with 
some combination of better FEC, slower data rate, better spreading of 
the data over frequency and/or time?

There have been many discussions of the timing problems associated 
with using Pactor with computer sound cards.  Would it be feasible to 
use OFDM (or any other mode) with much longer ARQ cycle times 
(several seconds) to accomodate the computer timing limitations?

BPSK31 has become very popular due to its success with relatively low 
signal to noise ratios.  I have noticed, though, that it does not 
perform well with the rapid flutter experienced with propagation over 
the pole even with good signal levels.  Could this be be overcome 
with a little lower data rate (longer bit periods), better FEC, wider 
bandwidth, OFDM, etc?

I have noticed that with signals coming over the North Pole, RTTY 
often works better than PSK31.  Since RTTY (and MFSK, Olivia, etc.)
only uses one tone at a time, it seems to me that OFDM which uses the 
entire bandwidth all of the time would be a more efficient use of the 
bandwidth.  Is this reasonable?  How do the various modes compare for 
efficiency of the bandwidth usage?  I am familiar with Shannon's 
theorem but would like to know how OFDM compares to other modulation 
modes.

There is quite a range of applications or uses of digital modes 
within the ham radio community.  Each application has very different 
requirements.  The applications range from:

1) Weak signal communications that require minimal information 
exchange and can take extended time periods (JT65, etc.).
2) Real time keyboard to keyboard QSOs with speeds ranging from a few 
words/minute to 50+ wpm.  These uses can usually tolerate some 
errors.  Narrow bandwidth also seems to be an advantage for these 
uses for a few different reasons.
3) Net operations.  ARQ cannot be used since this is one to many 
communications.  I have not participated in this type of operation so 
I am not familiar with how it is used or what is required.
4) File transfer or email - The highest possible data rate is 
preferred but the mode must be adaptable for varying propagation 
conditions.  This requires zero error so usually uses some form of 
ARQ.

What other uses can others suggest that would have distinctly 
different requirements?

Ed

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Rud Merriam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Here is a proposal for an OFDM protocol with a bandwidth of 493 Hz. 
The
> symbol rate is 29 Hz allowing 17 subcarriers. That provides 16 
subsymbols
> and 1 pilot carrier. With PSK  modulation and a 5 ms guard interval 
the
> effective symbol rate is 25.3 Hz which provides 405 bps. 
> 
> Any guesses on how well that would work? 
> 
>  
> Rud Merriam K5RUD 
> ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
> http://TheHamNetwork.net
>

[digitalradio] Re: The Bozo's Guide to HF JT65A has been updated.

[Ed Hekman]

Andy,

Nice work on the document.  I am just a few days behind you on the 
learning curve.  I was able to get it set up and running with the 
documentation provided with the software but a few things had to be 
learned by experience and experimentation.  Your document has all 
the essential information for the new user and should make this mode 
useable for many new operators.

I had an exciting introduction to JT65A the day before you published 
your document.  After reading about this mode on this group for 
several weeks I finally downloaded and installed it last Friday.  
Since my computer has multiple sound cards, the information in the 
DOS window was essential for selecting the correct input and output 
sound card numbers.  After getting it set up I hit the monitor 
button and watched the trace for awhile (7076 KHz).  I couldn't hear 
anything but wondered what that faint line was on the waterfall.  I 
was astounded when ZS6WN popped up in the text window with -23 dB 
SNR.  After sending a few replies it was a thrill to see his 
response.

The only thing I would suggest adding is a little more explanation 
about how to use the information in the DOS window to select sound 
card numbers for the input and output with multiple sound cards 
installed on the computer.

Thanks for your administration of this group and for the document.

Ed
WB6YTE

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Andrew O'Brien" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The Bozo's Guide to HF JT65A has been updated.  Thanks to  those 
that
> contributed suggestions.
> 
> http://www.obriensweb.com/bozoguidejt65a.htm
> 
> 
> It is likely to require a few more updates to ensure that the 
basic's
> are explained.

Re: [digitalradio] The Bozo's Guide to HF JT65A has been updated.

[Ed Zimmer]

Andy is there some way to mark additions and revisions so that we do not 
have to scan it completely? Nice work. Really appreciate it.

Andrew O'Brien wrote:

>The Bozo's Guide to HF JT65A has been updated.  Thanks to  those that
>contributed suggestions.
>
>http://www.obriensweb.com/bozoguidejt65a.htm
>
>
>It is likely to require a few more updates to ensure that the basic's
>are explained.
>
>Again, any stupid errors or things that are just plain wrong...let me know.
>  
>

[digitalradio] ALE usage guidelines

[Ed Hekman]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Ed,
> 
> You can find much more info on set up of PCALE, and general ALE
> operation on the HFLINK group. 
> http://hflink.com
> 
> 73 Bonnie KQ6XA

Thanks again, Bonnie.  I just submitted a request to join the hflink 
group.  I have a few more questions about basic operation using 
PCALE that I couldn't find answers for on the hflink web site.

I was listening on 14109.5 today.  Another station called QRZ and my 
station automatically answered and set up a connection.  We 
communicated for awhile on ALE then moved to PSK on 14070.  

What caused my station to automatically answer the QRZ call?  

What is the standard protocol?  Are we expected to QSY to another 
mode/freq when the connection is established?

What do these acronyms mean and how are they used?
AMD  (general CQ?)
DTM
DBM
MOTD

Under the configuration menu what are the 3 mode options used for?
MIL-STD-188-141
MIL-STD-188-110
FS-1052 Appendix B

Is there a usage guide available on the web site?

Thanks,
Ed




Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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] New PCALE Beta Version Re: ALE activity today

[Ed Hekman]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ed WB6YTE wrote: 
> > I installed and attempted to setup PCALE yesterday but 
> > encountered a few problems.
> > 
> > I did not find my radio (TS-2000) in the MIL-STD-188-141 menu.  
> > Is  this program limited to the radios listed?
> > 
> > There is only one com port selection for radio control.  Can 
> > separate com ports be selected for radio frequency control and 
PTT 
> > control?
> > 
> > How do you set the radio control serial port baud rate, etc?
> >  
> Hi Ed,
> 
> It seems you may be using the older version.
> Try the new PCALE Beta v1.062G 
> available for download on the HFLINK website:
> http://hflink.com/beta
> 
> Remember to download all 3 files:
> ALE.exe
> ALE.DAT
> and the channel fill file.
> 
> You will find more user support on the HFLINK group.
> 
> 73---Bonnie KQ6XA

Thanks, Bonnie.  I have the newer version loaded and found the 
separate com ports setup.  Are there settings in one of the menus 
for the baud rate, etc.  

Since the TS-2000 is not listed as one the radio choices, is there a 
way for me to create a command file for this radio or is it limited 
to just one manually selected frequency?

Where can I find a general description of ALE operation?

Thanks,
Ed




Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ALE activity today

[Ed Hekman]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> A lot of ALE action today, 20M (14109) has been quite active with 
netcalls and soundings.  For example , I just decoded  K5SKH with 
fair signals 
> 
> [13:49:40][FRQ 14109500][SND][ ][TIS][K5SKH ][AL0] BER 30 SN 10
> 
> Since this week is ALE activity week, you should hear more, this 
may be the week to try ALE, if you have not already.  
> 
> Andy K3UK

Andy,

I installed and attempted to setup PCALE yesterday but encountered a 
few problems.

I did not find my radio (TS-2000) in the MIL-STD-188-141 menu.  Is 
this program limited to the radios listed?

There is only one com port selection for radio control.  Can 
separate com ports be selected for radio frequency control and PTT 
control?

How do you set the radio control serial port baud rate, etc?

Ed
WB6YTE




Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ALE activity today

[Ed Hekman]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> A lot of ALE action today, 20M (14109) has been quite active with 
netcalls and soundings.  For example , I just decoded  K5SKH with 
fair signals 
> 
> [13:49:40][FRQ 14109500][SND][ ][TIS][K5SKH ][AL0] BER 30 SN 10
> 
> Since this week is ALE activity week, you should hear more, this 
may be the week to try ALE, if you have not already.  
> 
> Andy K3UK

Andy,

I tried to install and setup ALE yesterday without success.

Questions: 
How do you select the sound card?
How do you select the radio control com port, baud rate, etc.
How do you select the com port used for PTT?

Thanks,
Ed
WB6YTE




Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: HF signal propagation effects publications

[Ed Hekman]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "ArthurLekstutis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Hi,
> 
> Where can I find a good technical analysis of the real-world 
> propagation effects on signals in the HF bands, especially on the 
> digital modes? Preferably an online resource, but I wouldn't mind 
> buying yet another good book for my library.
> 
> I need to code a modulator for my voice codec, and want it to be 
> fairly robust and degrade gracefully. I need a reference to 
> understand the characteristics of the medium for its design, and 
> enough detail to build a model to test via simulation during 
> development. Obviously there is nothing like the real thing, but I 
> need a good technical understanding of the real-world effects 
first. 
> I'm sure there are many that have made careers out of 
understanding 
> this, and have published good works.
> 
> Any suggestions for such material would be much appreciated.
> 
> Thanks,
> Artie Lekstutis
> KC2MFS
> 73

Artie,

I did a brief internet search starting with the title you 
suggested, "Experimental Confirmation of an HF Chanel Model", and 
found some interesting references.

There is a channel simulator program available for free.  It can be 
found at:
http://www.qsl.net/ae4jy/pathsim.htm

This article contains a detailed description of an HF channel model 
with CCIR recommendations for values for frequency spread and delay 
times between multipath rays.
http://www.johanforrer.net/SIMULR/index.html

Another good article with many references is:
http://www.hfindustry.com/HF%20Simulator/chansim.pdf

I would be interested in discussing these articles if you find them 
useful.

Happy reading!

Ed
WB6YTE




Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: Digital Voice: Some thoughts after one week.

[Ed Hekman]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC 
CONS/LGCA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've heard DV using LCP-10 and a 16 tone modem as well as a 39 
tone modem at 1200 bps...it sounds robotic at best.  But that could 
have been just the systems used (ANDVT/Mil-STD-188-110)
> 
> Walt/K5YFW

Walt,

Thanks for your very interesting and informative comments.  I would 
be very interested in meeting you on the air for an extended 
conversation on the subject.  We should be able to connect on 40M or 
80M in the evenings.  I often monitor 7295 +/-.  I can also be 
reached on EchoLink.

Some of the questions I have are:

1) Can you suggest a reference on HF propagation that may show 
distributions or histograms of fade depths, durations and bandwidths?

2) For the examples of military equipment you gave, did they use 
voice bandwidths (~2.5 KHz) or were the bandwidths larger?

3) With military communications I expect that voice quality and 
accuracy of the communication is essential.  For ham weak signal 
applications where accuracy is not a life and death matter, can we 
gain any performance by trading codec data for FEC data?  If voice 
quality at 2400 bps is considered acceptable for military 
applications, can we get better SNR performance with useable voice 
quality for ham applications at codec data rates less than 2400 bps 
with stronger FEC?

Is there anyone reading this thread that could develop additional 
experimental modes for WinDRM?

Ed
WB6YTE




Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: First DRM Reception

[Ed Hekman]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "jhaynesatalumni" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Tony  wrote:
> >
> > Jim
> > 
> >
> > You need to mute the MIC audio on your sound card. That will stop
> the WinDRM 
> > digital signal from making it to your PC speakers and mixing 
with the 
> > decoded voice. Once it starts to decode, WinDRM will playback the
> audio into 
> > your sound card speakers.
> > 
[snip...]
> Well, thanks, but...   The soundcard mixer stuff doesn't seem to 
work
> under WINE.  I guess I have to use the native Linux mixer.  And my
> soundcard has only one output, not separate line and speaker 
outputs.
> That's why I think I need another sound card.


I use a USB sound card adapter ($10) and a set of headphones with a 
boom mic ($4) with XP to simplify the setup.  The USB sound card 
driver installation was done automatically by XP.  I don't know how 
difficult it would be with Linux.

Ed





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: Digital Voice: Some thoughts after one week.

[Ed Hekman]

Some more info:

I found a paper that describes some tests done with 2.4Kbps and 
1.2kbps voice transmission over HF paths.  It sounds like the 1.2 
kbps gives useable voice quality.

I talked to a friend who had done some research for the military 
back in the '80s on digital voice transmission over HF.  He said 
that the state of the art back then was about 2.4Kbps but there was 
a technique developed for decoding the speech into text with a very 
limited vocabulary for tactical operations - around 300 words - and 
sending the words with minimum coding required for the limited 
vocabulary.  The transmitted data was then reconstructed into speech 
at the receiving end.  The data rates achieved with this method were 
as low as 300 bps.  There were a few problems with this method, 
though.  First it introduced substantial delays due to the 
processing required for the speech recognition.  Second, the Aussies 
got very upset when their speech came out the other end of the link 
with a midwestern accent. :)  Finally, when attempts were made to 
apply this method to an application for the Marines for fire control 
communications, the Marines were unable to come up with a 300 word 
vocabularly that didn't contain profanity or obscenities so the 
project was killed.

Seriously, long distance HF propagation imposes some very 
challenging problems with long fades that can only be overcome with 
long interleaving of the data which creates long delays in the 
transmission.  I will continue to study the issue and report any 
interesting ideas that show promise for weak signal digitzed voice 
communications.

Ed

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Ed Hekman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Tony  wrote:
> >
> > Ed wrote:
> > 
> > > Are there any communications engineers in this group that can
> > > give us some idea whether a useable quality digitized voice 
can 
> be
> > > sent over a 2.5 KHz wide HF channel with SNR comparable to or 
> less > than 
> > > what is required for analog voice?
> > 
> > I was thinking about this today Ed. I'd sacrifice a bit of voice 
> qaulity for 
> > better SNR performance.
> > 
> > WinDRM defaults to the MELP codec and I was wondering if the 
SPEEX 
> or LP-10 
> > offer an improvement in SNR performance?
> > 
> > Tony KT2Q
> 
> Tony,
> 
> The key to better weak signal performance will be primarily in how 
> the data is sent over the air.  Observing the signal for digital 
> SSTV on 20M has been very interesting.  Often a hole in the 
spectrum 
> can be observed as it moves across the spectrum.  It takes out 
about 
> 20% of the spectrum and has a time span at one frequency of around 
a 
> second.  The packaging of the data must be done with enough 
> redundancy spread throughout the spectrum so it can be recovered 
in 
> spite of these spectrum holes.  On 80M atmospheric noise tends to 
> have short impulses that take out the entire signal for much 
shorter 
> periods of time - much less than a second.  To mitigate this, the 
> data redundancy must be spread over time so the data can be 
> recovered in spite of a complete loss of signal for a few 
> milliseconds.
> 
> Of course adding redundancy means reducing the data rate for the 
> encoded voice data.  This would probably require some adjustments 
to 
> the voice coding algorithm.  With cellular signals, although the 
> maximum data rate may be 8K bps, the effective rate is usually 
less 
> than 1/2 that due to the fact that speech is not a constant 
signal - 
> there are holes in it for short periods of time during which no 
data 
> needs to be sent.  






Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: Digital Voice: Some thoughts after one week.

[Ed Hekman]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Ed Hekman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I found the specifications.  The spec used for broadcast DRM can 
be 
> found here:
> 
> http://webapp.etsi.org/exchangefolder/es_201980v020101p.pdf
> 
> The WinDRM spec can be found here:
> 
> http://www.qslnet.de/member/hb9tlk/drm_h.html

The WinDRM specification is very sketchy but after a quick review it 
suggests that the speech data rate is near the minimum possible and 
there is little room for additional FEC coding.  The documment 
suggests that the minimum data rate for voice is 1000 bits per 400 
ms frame (2.5 kbps).  The subcarrier modulation is QAM16 or QAM64 
and there are two levels of FEC to choose from but the FEC is not 
described.  The interleaving of the pilots and overhead data is 
described but not the interleaving of the voice data.

I will have to have a conversation with one of the speech codec 
designers I work with.

Ed






Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: Digital Voice: Some thoughts after one week.

[Ed Hekman]

I found the specifications.  The spec used for broadcast DRM can be 
found here:

http://webapp.etsi.org/exchangefolder/es_201980v020101p.pdf

The WinDRM spec can be found here:

http://www.qslnet.de/member/hb9tlk/drm_h.html







Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://standraise.corp.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://standraise.corp.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: Digital Voice: Some thoughts after one week.

[Ed Hekman]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ed wrote:
> 
> > Are there any communications engineers in this group that can
> > give us some idea whether a useable quality digitized voice can 
be
> > sent over a 2.5 KHz wide HF channel with SNR comparable to or 
less > than 
> > what is required for analog voice?
> 
> I was thinking about this today Ed. I'd sacrifice a bit of voice 
qaulity for 
> better SNR performance.
> 
> WinDRM defaults to the MELP codec and I was wondering if the SPEEX 
or LP-10 
> offer an improvement in SNR performance?
> 
> Tony KT2Q

Tony,

The key to better weak signal performance will be primarily in how 
the data is sent over the air.  Observing the signal for digital 
SSTV on 20M has been very interesting.  Often a hole in the spectrum 
can be observed as it moves across the spectrum.  It takes out about 
20% of the spectrum and has a time span at one frequency of around a 
second.  The packaging of the data must be done with enough 
redundancy spread throughout the spectrum so it can be recovered in 
spite of these spectrum holes.  On 80M atmospheric noise tends to 
have short impulses that take out the entire signal for much shorter 
periods of time - much less than a second.  To mitigate this, the 
data redundancy must be spread over time so the data can be 
recovered in spite of a complete loss of signal for a few 
milliseconds.

Of course adding redundancy means reducing the data rate for the 
encoded voice data.  This would probably require some adjustments to 
the voice coding algorithm.  With cellular signals, although the 
maximum data rate may be 8K bps, the effective rate is usually less 
than 1/2 that due to the fact that speech is not a constant signal - 
there are holes in it for short periods of time during which no data 
needs to be sent.  

Can someone tell where to find the specification for the modulation 
format used by WinDRM?

Ed
WB6YTE





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: Digital Voice: Some thoughts after one week.

[Ed Hekman]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> I have been "QRV" on digital voice ,using WinDRM, and thought I 
would offer 
> some rookie/newbie random  thoughts.
> 
> 1.  This mode's performance may appear counter-intuitive for most 
digital 
> mode operators.  By that I mean,  we associate digital modes like 
PSK31, 
> Olivia, MT63, etc, with the ability to communicate under weak 
signal 
> conditions.  To be able to communicate when SSB analog voice 
signals are not 
> reliable.
> 
> It is the opposite with Digital Voice , as manifested in WinDRM.  
Perfectly 
> copyable  CW and traditional SSB voice signals do not translate in 
to enough 
> signal to maintain the digital voice transmissions.  e.g. my 
analog QSO 
> today with Gerhard OE3GBB was about a 449 RST.  That is;  Readable 
with 
> practically no difficulty, Fair signals .  However, I had to focus 
my brain 
> quite a bit to pick his voice out between the QRM. When we 
switched to DV, 
> the audio was stunning in quality (better than FM on 2M) but I 
only copied 
> about 40% of what he sent, the rest was just silence.  So, I am 
not sure 
> what "use" this communication method has if we need "good" signals 
rather 
> than fair or weak signals.  If one can copy a person fair to well 
with SSB 
> analog, why do we need to switch to DV voice?
> 
> 
> 2.  The software (WinDRM) is very well designed and fairly easy to 
figure 
> out.  The ability to have the software switch Mic/Line In settings 
in the 
> sound mixer is very useful.  The waterfall and other tuning 
display 
> indicators are extremely well thought out.
> 
> 
> 3.  There is something "odd" about copying HF signals with good 
audio 
> fidelity.  My old ham brain is so used to "Donald Duck" under 
water SSB 
> audio that hearing a DV signal does not sound like "real radio".  
It IS real 
> radio because it is sent/received via radio waves , but it feels 
like you 
> are on Echolink , IRLP, or Skype!.
> 
> 
> 4.  It is exiting to be on air with just the few that are active.  
If you 
> expect to hear LOTS of DRM signals, you'll be disappointed.  
Activity is 
> less than Hell or MT63!
> 
> 5. WinDRM shows that DV can be done well without expensive 
outboard hardware 
> devices (AOR).  It works with a fairly low CPU PC.  I think we are 
in the 
> Betamax-VHS era for amateur radio digital voice, with several 
incompatible 
> DV modes.
> 
> 
> Andy K3UK

Andy,

I've had some of the same thoughts.  Much of the attraction of Ham 
radio to a lot of people is the ability to work long distances.  CW 
still lives and PSK31 has been widely accepted because of this.  It 
was quite a thrill when I worked someone in Russia with PSK31 who 
was using a homebrew rig with 5 watts output.  PSK31 has opened Ham 
radio to a lot of people who can't put up a big antenna or run high 
power.

When I first tried analog SSTV a few months ago I thought about how 
primitive it was compared to digital communications today.  However 
when I tried HamPal it was very disappointing to find out how 
difficult it was to receive a picture even with an S9 signal.  The 
picture quality is stunning but the success rate is so low that it 
will never replace analog SSTV.

I had hoped that DV would be able to improve the quality of 
communication over analog voice in conditions when analog voice was 
marginal.  It seems that if we could trade some of the voice quality 
for better weak signal performance it would be much more attractive 
to many hams.  With SSTV, weak signal performance could easily be 
improved by reducing picture resolution and reducing the data rate.  
That is a little more difficult to do with voice since voice 
communications must be in real time - we can't just slow the data 
rate down to fit the channel conditions.  

I work in cellular communications and know that good voice quality 
can be maintained with a data rate of 8k bps.  It seems reasonable 
that useable voice quality can be produced with half that data 
rate.  Are there any communications engineers in this group that can 
give us some idea whether a useable quality digitized voice can be 
sent over a 2.5 KHz wide HF channel with SNR comparable to or less 
than what is required for analog voice?

Ed





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

[digitalradio] Re: 7296 LSB CQ Digital Voice

[Ed Hekman]

Andy,

I am monitoring but with an S9 noise level here this evening it is 
very unlikely I will here anything out of town.

Ed
WB6YTE

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> I am on 7296 LSB calling CQ for the next hour between 0300 and 0400 
> UTC,
> mostly at 00, 15, 30 and 45 minutes past the hour with ID tones then
> digital CQ data file.
>






Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: Digital voice and BPL

[Ed Hekman]

I will try to fill in a few details.


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Champa"  
wrote:
> >> Is what I am hearing true?  That BPL has no affect on digital 
voice!
> >>
> > I'm too new at DV to know, but why would this be true?  
Interference 
> > is interference, right ?
> > 
> > Andy K3UK
> 
> I am going to attempt an explanation though I
> may be broadcasting ignorance and generating
> more smoke than light!
> 
> Analog audio is converted to digital data.

For specific types of audio such as speech, the conversion to 
digital data is done using techinques that minimize the amount of 
data required to replicate the audio.  A modem designed for speech 
would not work for transmitting audio for SSTV or music because 
speech coding (vocoding) techniques take advantage of the fact that 
speech does not occupy the entire spectrum from 300 to 3000 Hz.
 
> The digital data is chunked into packets.
> 
> Each packet has a header and footer that ID's
> the content.
> 
> If the packet arrives damaged it is automatically
> resent until it arrives intact.

Not necessarily true - it depends on the application.  There are 2 
basic categories of techniques for maintaining with data integrity - 
forward error correction (FEC) and automatic repeat request (ARQ).  
In the ARQ mode, some information is added to the data to allow the 
receiving to determine if there are errors.  If the receiving 
station determines there are errors in the data, a request is sent 
to the transmitting station to retransmit the data.  In the FEC mode 
more redundant information is sent to allow the receiving station to 
not only determine whether there are errors in the data but also to  
possibly correct those errors.  

For example, AMTOR (and PACTOR) have two modes of operation with the 
names FEC and ARQ.  When sending CQ, the FEC mode is used but during 
a QSO the ARQ mode is normally used.  The FEC mode allows anyone to 
decode the transmission with tolerable errors.  The ARQ mode 
requires the receiving station to send a report periodically to 
indicate whether the data was received correctly.  PSK31 uses only 
FEC so it does not require an error report from the receiving 
station.  Digital SSTV (such as HamPal) creates a Bad Segment Report 
(BSR) that can be sent to the transmitting station to request a 
retransmission of the missing data.  

Since the reception errors are different at each receiving station, 
the FEC mode is more suitable for CQs or roundtable discussions 
where it is impracticable for each receiving station to send a 
repeat request for the missing data.  For most of the modes used by 
ham radio, such as text, speech or SSTV pictures, some errors in the 
data reception are tolerable and do not degrade the content 
significantly.

The attractiveness of the PSK31 mode for many people is its 
enhancement to weak signal communications.  A QSO can be successful 
even with a 20% data loss rate.  I have been able to receive some 
pictures using HamPal with remarkable detail and quality but the 
success rate without the BSR is very low even with strong signals.  
It does not appear to me to be well designed for HF ham radio 
applications.  Analog SSTV is very popular even though the picture 
quality is considerably less than digital SSTV.  Digital voice and 
SSTV will become much more attractive when modes are developed that 
deliver acceptable quality at lower signal to noise ratios than 
current analog modes.  

> In theory what would be interference to an analog
> modulated signal (we'd try to filter out with analog
> and/or dsp filters) would only slow the successful
> and clean transmission and reception of a digital
> "packeted" one, not stop it.

This is true for the ARQ mode although increasing interference would 
eventually cause data loss.  In general, the more that is known 
about the characteristics of the interference the more one can do to 
eliminate, avoid or mitigate it.

Ed
WB6YTE

> Do I have that correct -- in my simplistic layman's
> terminology?  :-)
> 
> -- 
> 
> Thanks! & 73,
> doc, KD4E
> ... somewhere in FL
> URL:  bibleseven (dot) com
>






Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: First DRM reception, sort of

[Ed Hekman]

Andy,

14233 is used for HamPal DRM pictures.  I have copied several 
pictures there over the past few weeks but the success rate of 
HamPal without using the BSR is very low.  I am looking forward to 
trying WinDRM for voice - haven't heard anything on 40M yet.

Ed

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> I have heard no digital voice signals thus far  but I did capture 
this on 14233...
> 
> A data, versus voice,  transmission from KB6QEX with SNR of 11.5.
> 
> 
> Andy K3UK
>







Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: WinDRM voice tonight anyone?

[Ed Hekman]

Andy,

I didn't hear any signals last night either.  After I wrote that 
post I realized that EchoLink uses one of the sound cards required 
for WinDRM.  It will take a few minutes to set up another USB sound 
card for EchoLink tonight.

How is the evening propagation on 40M?  If we don't connect tonight 
or tomorrow night, we can try 14.238 MHz on Saturday.

Ed
WB6YTE

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ed.  I will give you a shout on Echolink.  I may also try it with 
my
> neighbour who is also a ham (we should have a good signal to noise
> ratio!) .   I heard no signals last night , did you?
> 
> Andy K3UK







Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: WinDRM voice tonight anyone?

[Ed Hekman]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I am interested in trying my first digital voice QSO, using WINDRM, 
anyone
> want to also try it tonight ?

I just discovered WinDRM tonight and would like to try it but I don't 
get home until after 7PM PDST.  I will listen around 7290 - 7299 in 
the evenings the next few nights.

You can usually contact me on EchoLink when I am in the shack.

Ed
WB6YTE








Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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] Why is there no psk31 activity on 30 meters?

[Ed Davis]

Don,
   
 Good question and I agree that 30 mtrs is good band for psk31. I thinks 
it's better than 40 mtrs which can have a lot of atmospheric noise. There is a 
psk31 group that is trying to meet on 10.137 mhz in the evening. Give a CQ on 
that frequency.
 There is also a devoted 10 mtr group that watches 28.120. and gets active 
on psk31 when the 10 mtr band is open. Monitor the beacons between 28.200 to 
28.300 for an indication of band openings.
 Good luck.
   
  Ed KM9I
   
  

Don <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  GE,

Just wondering why there is no PSK31 activity on 30 meters? Seems like
a good band for PSK, yet I listen lots around 10.140 yet nothing much
on the waterfall.

de kb9umt Don



 

 __
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM
~-> 

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Viewing Modulation with Oscilloscope

[Ed Flaherty]

Hi, Rick.
I just joined this group and did a search on "Pegasus" and found your 
post.  What a coincidence that I was perusing the bands with Multipsk 
and found you in a QSO with NU4M using MFSK16!
I just bought my Peg a couple weeks ago and it has taken over my life.
I was looking for software that would let me key the rig via software 
and I think you gave me the anwer here with the mention of the DX Lab 
Suite.  I looked at Commander but it seemed to be saying that I had 
to be running other control software like TenTec's or N4PY's to work 
with it.  That's OK I have both of those.  So I'll go back to that 
and see if it will send key down/up commands to the Peg from Multipsk.
Anyway thanks for the tips on the software and the ALC.  I was using 
the same method of tuning up with another rig, my FT-767GX and 
thought the signal sounded clean even tho I was getting the light.
Hope to read you on 10.136 agn, maybe you'll be able to hear me too, 
I'm pretty antenna challenged here on the 5th floor of my apartment 
building.  I went out at midnite and dropped a 35ft length of magnet 
wire out the window and tied it to a small tree with a piece of 
plastic fishing line.  Works better than anything I had tried inside 
the apartment.  Tunes from 10 to 40 meters. But a good stiff breeze 
might snap it any time and I'll have to make another midnite run.  Oh 
well I've got 500ft of the magnet wire.
73's Ed - N2JLI

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I wonder if other hams do what I do in order to roughly determine 
if you 
> are sending a clean digital signal, with proper settings on the rig 
> and/or the sound card.
> 
> I use another rig to monitior the modulation  here in the shack 
with no 
> antenna connected on that rig. If you turn everything down and then 
> slowly increase drive levels it seems to me that I can easily hear 
if 
> things are starting to get more distorted. Usually I run fairly low 
> power where it is just starting to drive the rig and produce some 
output 
> that I can hear on the monitor rig.
> 
> On my ICOM 756 Pro II, I have found that even if I have the RF 
power set 
> to minimum, which is considered to be 5 watts, and with the sliders 
on 
> the sound card to a fairly low 1 1/2 on the master and wave 
outputs, I 
> will not see any power output on the LCD bargraph unless I turn up 
the 
> rig's RF power control. But even with a minimum I can often work 
> stations who say my signal is reasibably strong with good IMD.
> 
> But at that point it is barely copyable on the monitoring rig so I 
may 
> only be running a watt or two. If I run the RF power all the way to 
> 100%,  the output goes just past 50% so is probably pushing things 
a bit 
> too much and I keep it well back from there. I do not trigger any 
ALC 
> under those conditions and have to increase sound card output to 
make 
> the ALC start to indicate. If I run the ALC beyond the maximum 
> recommendation, you can hear the signal quality change to a 
distorted 
> pattern quite abruptly. So I normally run things with no ALC 
indication 
> at all, and that is what I have read is the best procedure.
> 
> Not all rigs will let you do that. My Ten Tec Pegasus, which works 
well 
> for digital modes (with the software that supports the Peg such as 
the 
> DX Lab suite along with MultiPSK that work together), I find that 
the 
> ALC light always seems to trigger, even with a clean signal. The 
main 
> thing is to be sure your sound card is set properly, perhaps by 
> monitoring the signal.
> 
> I am so thankful for the QuickMix applet that lets you nearly 
instantly 
> switch settings in your sound card for different purposes. Before 
that I 
> was constantly having to tweak the sound card settings every time I 
> wanted to operate a digital mode.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Rick, KV9U
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard wrote:
> 
> >
> > I am interested in verifying that I am not over-driving PSK31. Is
> > there a simple signal conditioning interface to an oscilloscope 
input?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Rich
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
> >
> > Other areas of interest:
> >
> > The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
> > DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy 
> > discussion)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > Ham radio 
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=Ham+radio&w1=Ham+radio&w2=Craft+hobby&w3=Hobby+and+craft+supply
&w4=Icom+ham+radio&w5=Yaesu+ham+radio&c=5&

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Do we really need to know?

[Ed Davis]

Bonnie,        Are you suggesting that we require a typing test to get a ham license ? And what typing speed do you think would be needed to get an entry level license ?       73- :) Ed KM9I expeditionradio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  >< > Do we really need to know the type/speed of a ham's computer?  Hi Andy,I would rather know what the other hams typing speed is.Mine is >70WPM :)What's yours?Bonnie KQ6XA__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)







  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [digitalradio] Do we really need to know?

[Ed Davis]

Andy,        I see nothing wrong with including a description of a ham's computer in the equipment description. It has more to do with the digital process than either their transceiver or antenna. The more you know about the other ham and his/her station the more there is to talk about.     Ed KM9IAndrew O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  Do we really need to know the type/speed of a ham's computer?  I see many include this in their description of their operating equipment.
		Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone  calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)







  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

[digitalradio] Re: Calling all experimenters ( A Proposal)

[Ed]

Not Everyone had a model 15 19, or 28 to test all combo
 
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The "fence", really ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 07:12 PM 12/6/05, you wrote:
> 
> >  The quick brown fox jumps over the fence. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
>







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM
~-> 

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to   telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software?  Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [digitalradio] Laptop computers for digital modes

[Ed Pusey]

I purchased one a couple of years ago ‘cause
I needed 1) Real DOS, 2) a serial port, 3) something to stand alone for
decoding.  They are a bit pricey, but they work!!

 



Ed Pusey



 









From:
digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jhaynesatalumni
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005
10:17 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Laptop
computers for digital modes



 

I hope this doesn't come off sounding like a commercial, as it isn't
intended to be and I have no connection with the
company, just thought
it might be of interest to some people. 
These days they don't make
laptops with real RS-232 ports. 
www.heartlandamerica.com  seems to have
a lot of older model refurbished laptops that do
have RS-232 ports.












Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to   telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software?  Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html









  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  
Ham radio
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

RE: [digitalradio] Keyboard to Keyboard

[Woodrick, Ed]

“impossible to re-create a
signal when the QSB reaches the point”

 

That, my friend, is where you are
mistaken. A number if these digital modes attempt to make it possible to
receive signals when other modes fail. The Chip 64 mode uses spread spectrum
just for this purpose. 

 

 











From:
digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of smar_68
Posted At: Friday, September 16,
2005 11:36 PM
Posted To: FT-817
Conversation: [digitalradio]
Keyboard to Keyboard
Subject: [digitalradio] Keyboard
to Keyboard
  

Hi Y'all...Whats up with all
of these new keyboard to keyboard digital 
modes? I see now we have "Chip 64". Are
we trying to squeeze as much 
sensitivity out of our soundcards as we can get?
My point is this...it 
is impossible to re-create a signal when the QSB
reaches the point of 
wiping out the signal entirely. In my view, I have
only used PSK31 and 
MFSK16, and both of them fail when the QSB reaches
a certain point. We 
should not expect miracles from every new digital
mode that comes 
along. Just my opinion. I will stick with PSK31
and MFSK16 for the 
foreseeable future. Am I missing something here?

Steven Renaud
VE3ALY










The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
More info at http:///www.obriensweb.com 






  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

RE: [digitalradio] Re: The future radio

[Woodrick, Ed]

 
They aren't designed for typing that way. The are 
designed for situations where typing is incidental. A PDA is a good example. You 
just need to input periodically, not type all day. And a little issue with 
typing for 10 minutes can be easily justified instead of carrying a full size 
keyboard with you.
 


From: Dave Bernstein 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Thursday, April 14, 2005 1:00 
AMPosted To: FT-817Conversation: [digitalradio] Re: The 
future radioSubject: [digitalradio] Re: The future 
radioI've not personally tried one, but early 
adopters report those virtual keyboards to be unuseable. To see why, try 
rapidly drumming your fingers on a table top for 10 minutes.Its more 
likely that your transceiver will connect with your car's telematics via 
ultra-wideband (aka wireless USB), allowing seemless integration with the 
available input (voice?) and output (heads-up display?) 
facilities.Like AI, holographic display technology doesn't seem to have 
made much progress since the mid-70s. Someone just announced a cellular 
handset that includes built-in accelerometers that can detect gestures, 
so you may someday be able to shake your fist to increase power and break 
the pileup.   73,   
Dave, AA6YQ--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew J. 
O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> I posted this on the Had Radio 
Deluxe Forum and thought I would also share it here.> > 
> > I had a vision today and got a peak in to what Ham Radio 
Deluxe version 10.01 ( or similar products )  will look like.  I 
was talking on a 2 metre repeater to a person who was asking advice 
about where to mount his Kenwood D700A control head, he needed a good 
place in his truck.> > I told him about the virtual keyboards that 
I have seen on TV, the ones that appear to get projected on to a desk for 
you to type on, but they don't really "exist".  I suggested that in a 
few years we will have the same for radios.  Seems to me that this will 
be the future for Ham Radio Deluxe.  In version 10.01 a chip in a radio 
, or within a laptop, will simply project a holographic image of the 
particular radio one has.  The radio or PC will be  in a 
cupboard  or under  the seat in a mobile installation. > 
> If mobile, your dashboard will have a 3D projected image.  Just 
issue voice commands or touch the imagine to operate the rig.  No 
installation needed, no worries about it falling off the dashboard.  
No holes to drill, no wires to run.> > At home, same 
thing.  That familiar Ham Radio Deluxe screen with digital readout and 
all your DSP filter settings ... but instead of a monitor on your desk, it 
will be a holographic image of HRD.  No physical rig for your computer 
using kid to spill a drink on.  No LCD screen to suffer 
burn-in.> > So, Simon and Peter, I'll enjoy seeing the HRD version 
numbers gradually change from 3.1 to 10.1 over the next few years.  It 
will be worth the wait.> > Andy 
K3UKThe K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT 
telnet://208.15.25.196/


The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/









Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Visual BASIC [was: Win Link]

[Woodrick, Ed]

There definitely will be VB for many, many more years. It 
is not going away, especially after the major development that was put into it 
for .Net. 
 
Whatever you have heard from which you construed that VB is 
dead, just assume that the source is bad or your interpretation is bad. 

 
I KNOW that there will be VB in 
VS05


From: Robert McGwier 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 
8:09 PMPosted To: FT-817Conversation: [digitalradio] Re: 
Visual BASIC [was: Win Link]Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Visual 
BASIC [was: Win Link]There is almost no one I respect 
more than David Bernstein as a programmerbut Microsoft has said it is 
definitely going to blow off all those developersand tell everyone VB is 
dead. As such, it will be.  I do not believe there willbe VB 
in  VS 2005.net.C# and even C++ are "forms programmable" and I 
think Microsoft believesthat VB had lost its place.  They are pretty 
much sharpening the coffin nailshaving publicly announced the end of 
VB.Bobrrlanders2 wrote:>Having worked 
25+ years in Fortune 500 companies here in the St. Louis>area, VB is 
heavily used. VBA in Access and Excel even more>so. VB.NET is following 
in VB6's footsteps. >>Like it or not, for business purposes, quite 
often it's "good enough"...>>I didn't make the rules, just get 
paid to write VB and VB.NET.>>And yes, you can actually write good 
code in VB.NET...although>it's harder in VB6>>73, Rod 
WI0T>>>  >The K3UK 
DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/


The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/









Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

RE: [digitalradio] Visual BASIC [was: Win Link]

[Woodrick, Ed]

Indeed, a large majority of programming is done in VB. 
It's not just Microsoft who says so. And just to let you know, "commercial 
shrink wrapped software" represents a relatively small amount of the programming 
is done by professional programmers.
 
1) Feel free to your own opinion, but one of the 
biggest changes in VB recently is that Microsoft did a rather major overhaul to 
support many of the modern constructs. This caused some compatibility problems, 
just as C to C# did. And yes, presence of VB on a resume can sometimes be a 
detractor, but then again so will being a CEO on a programmers resume. There are 
MANY programming positions for which VB is appropriate and a lot more 
non-programming jobs where it is appropriate.
 
2) VB doesn't bind that badly, there are definitely 
solutions for running VB on other platforms. Designing for ANY platforms 
binds a program to that platform, unless the program doesn't really 
interact with the system. Java has significant problems with portability, if you 
don't believe so, then just look at all of the exceptions and work arounds that 
are included in most Java applications that work on different platforms. Heck, 
just try to print something and see what hoops you have to go 
through.
 
3) Oh, and there's never been a versioning issue with 
Java? Or C? Or any other language or OS? That's life, get used to it. Microsoft 
changed the way that ports were accessed between those versions of OS. Anything 
that tried to get to the ports directly was stopped by the OS, something that 
needed to be done to better support the multi-threaded operation of the OS. As 
far as I know, EVERY language got hampered by this issue.
 
 
You've evidently not studied the industry well over the 
last few years and realized how the .Net development platform virtualizes the 
choice of programming language. There are very few, if any things that one 
language can do that the other cannot do. Now programmers are able to pick and 
choose the language that best fulfills the task that they have at hand, or their 
experience dictates. There are some things that PERL can do better than other 
languages, some things that VB can do better, and some things that C# can do 
better. Pick and chose the one that works best for you. 
 
 
 
 
 


From: Dean Gibson AE7Q 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 3:08 
PMPosted To: FT-817Conversation: [digitalradio] Visual 
BASIC [was: Win Link]Subject: [digitalradio] Visual BASIC [was: Win 
Link]On 2005-04-12 22:22, Dave Bernstein 
wrote:>Perhaps your definition of "Professional Programmer" is 
different than mine, but when I last checked VB (including VB.net) was in the 
top 5, if not the top 3, among professional developers. According to 
whom, Microsoft?  How many serious commercial packages canyou name that 
are written in VB?  Not many.I've been professionally programming 
for over 40 years, from mainframesto Windows systems to embedded 
systems.  Not only does no one I've everworked with program in VB, but 
everyone in the industry that I knowbelieves that it is a hacker's 
language.  Students starting out atUniversity in Washington (and 
presumably other universities) in ComputerScience think it is a hacker's 
language.  This, despite the fact thatBASIC was developed at a 
University (Dartmouth, I believe) many yearsago.  Presence of VB 
experience on a resume is a negative.  So why isthere all this negative 
feeling about VB?1. Like Fortran (which I learned on), the VB language 
is "hacked" byMicrosoft to have modern language features, rather than being 
properlydesigned.2. VB binds both the developer and the user to a 
specific OS, an OS soldby a manufacturer whose goal has been to stamp out 
every bit ofcompetition.  When most languages are supported on many, 
many,architectures, VB (and .NET) are supported only by a predatory 
company.Why on earth UNNECESSARY bind yourself to ANY specific architecture 
whenyou don't have to, but ESPECIALLY Microsoft?  Why not choose 
Java?Especially for ham radio, where a significant number of users 
runLinux?  Good programmers look for ways to INCREASE the portability 
oftheir code, not DECREASE it.3. VB communications programs can work 
fine on Win 95/98 systems and not at all on Win NT/2k/XP Pro.  WIth 
great reluctance a few years ago I bought a VB program to communicate with 
the computers in my Audi (using the ODB-II serial interface);  it 
worked fine on Win 98 (where the author had developed it), but NOT AT ALL on 
WinNT/2k.  The author knew this but didn't know how to fix it.  
Fortunately, another developer came along with a package NOT written in VB, 
and I junked the VB program.>I don't release the source code to DXLab 
for 2 reasons:>>1. Working with users, designing, implementing, 
and testing are fun; coordinating an open source community is work.I 
agree with that.  However, you don't have to maintain an open source 
community in order to release source under the G

RE: [digitalradio] Winlink Scanning

[Woodrick, Ed]

The Erlang numbers are commonly used when sizing telephone systems. Just
look at an normal family. If you have four people in the house with one
phone, then the odds are pretty high that you will get contention over
the use of the phone. If you have two phones, the odds drop
dramatically. Three is even better and four goes to zero. But buying
four phone lines is expensive, especially when the probability of all
four people needing the same phone line is essentially 0. Erlang's
numbers are based on the probability for different types of needs.

If there is only one PMBO, it doesn't matter if they are scanning or
not. There's a maximum of one connection. If there are two PMBOs, then
if they are on the same channel, there is a higher probability that
someone will try yo use both at the same time and cause contention. But
if they are on two different channels, then the odds go down. (duh!) 

Now if we go to three PMBOs on three different channels, things are
good. But can we handle about as much traffic if we only use two
channels? If a PMBO could hear and talk to all other devices then you
could only have two channels running at any time, therefore no
advantage. But since everyone hears differently, there could be some
sharing that occurs, but then the hidden transmitter problem occurs.

I believe that I am correct in assuming that the PMBO is the fixed
station portion of the network, and if not, ignore everything else I'm
about to say.

Now, where Erlangs enter the equation is how many conversations can
occur per day for 1, 2, or 3 PMBOs on different channels. Sometime
unexpected is that 2 PMBOs can handle more than 2* a single PMBO and
that 3 can handle more than three individual channels. The situation is
that conversations are not generally randomly spread out through the
day. There are some times where many people try yo talk at once. It's
some rough math, but it goes back to the phones in a home as explained
above.

Now, in my book, it makes absolutely no sense for the PMBOs to be
scanning, that's something that the user stations should be doing. After
all, when you have two phones in the house, just look to see which one
is not in use. That's called scanning. 

Now the third option of two transceivers is doable, but generally only
if the transceivers are at different sites, which is really option B. I
had one network using adjacent channels for transcontinental traffic and
we found out that we had some big problems because the two channels were
nominally in the same passband for the receiver. The receiver would
adjust the AGC and bury the weak one in the noise.

 

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Skip Teller
Posted At: Thursday, April 14, 2005 8:46 PM
Posted To: FT-817
Conversation: [digitalradio] Winlink Scanning
Subject: [digitalradio] Winlink Scanning



Does anybody here understand the application of Erlang B?

I have put forth a suggestion on QRZ.COM that the scanning Winlink
PMBO's do serves to prevent a user from discerning if a PMBO is busy or
not before taking up a frequency and calling repetitively to find out.

Here is my last question to K4CJX, who has not yet answered. Any
comments? I don't know anything about traffic analysis!


Quote (k4cjx @ April 14 2005,09:54)

Regarding scanning, use Erlang B, and basic traffic enginering, and you
can see that it is a more optimal solution to scan.



OK Steve,

Here is an Erlang B calculator.

http://www.cas.mcmaster.ca/~qiao/publications/erlang/newerlang.html

What values do you assume for the case of:

A: A Winlink PMBO scanning two frequenices, accepting connections on
only one frequency at a time.

B: A Winlink PMBO monitoring one frequency only.

C: A Winlink PMBO using two transceivers, scanning two frequencies.

It looks like to me that the traffic handling capacity does not change
unless there are two transceivers at the PMBO, capable of connecting on
two different frequencies at the same time, and both feeding the
Internet with traffic simultaneously. This would increase the number of
lines from one to two. As Mark observed, one transceiver scanning two
frequencies still equals one line, not two, so I agree with his
observation.

Do you agree? If not, then how did you arrive at a PMBO scanning two
frequencies as a more optimal solution and is it optimal for the user
population or for spectrum usage?

Intuitively, it still seems to me that there is a tremendous advantage
to both the user and the spectrum to eliminate scanning so the user can
tell if a PMBO is available, or busy on an alternate scan frequency. In
the case of no scanning, it is CERTAIN he is not busy on an alternate
frequency, and if he is busy with a station you cannot detect, then when
he transmits his bursts, if you cannot hear that either, then you are
out of range, so you do not need to use up a frequency trying to connect
when there is no hope of making a connection. This keep

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Is packet dead (was Winlink take over) - aka learn from the past

[Woodrick, Ed]

Comments embedded


From: Joel Kolstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Thursday, April 07, 2005 1:31 PMPosted To: 
FT-817Conversation: [digitalradio] Re: Is packet dead (was Winlink 
take over) - aka learn from the pastSubject: [digitalradio] Re: Is 
packet dead (was Winlink take over) - aka learn from the 
past
Hi Ed,That was a very informative post; thanks!  I was 
very much 'into' the modem-based BBSes back in, e.g., the mid-80s, but never 
made it onto packet at that time.Let me add a few 
comments:> How many of you are on high-speed DSL/Cable 
modem connections? Why not> on dial-up? Dial-up is just too slow for 
the communications that most of> us do today.I 
disagree.  I do have DSL or cable modem access at work and at home, but 
dial-up speeds are still quite 'reasonable' for casual usage (checking 
e-mail, perusing a few 'lightweight' web sites such as QRZ or eHam or the 
Yahoo! groups or Amazon.com, etc.).  Yes, it does change my surfing 
habits -- I'm not going to download some 40MB comedic video file of cats 
making fools of themselves right then and there, although I might decide, 
that, e.g., a 4MB document from work is worth the 10-15 minutes 
wait.I don't know the numbers, but I'd bet your a nickel that for _home_ 
users dial-up Internet access still FAR outnumbers DSL/cable modem 
access -- if only due to the price differntials, with dial-up access 
typically going for $10-$25/mo whereas DSL/cable is more like 
$30-$55.  A lot of people simply can't afford or aren't willing to pay 
the extra $50/mo, whereas $15/mo isn't so bad.So, in my mind, the 
Internet starts to become 'usable' at, say, 32kbps.  64kbps is quite 
desirable, and 128kbps is getting to be pretty leisurely (at 128kbps, many 
times the overall delay in 'casual web page viewing' has more to do with 
latency and server response times than the raw data transfer rate... of 
course, this doesn't apply to large streaming downloads...).[Woodrick, 
Ed] But to perform a lot of operation, VoIP, video, trunking requires a lot 
higher speeds. For emergency communications, we need a heck of a lot more. We 
need to send 4MB pictures over the network. We need to send databases. We need 
to send normal size email. One big difference is that we tend to use your 
32kbps channel as shared as opposed to single pipe per person. Put 10 people on 
the channel and you get 3kbps!
 > But there are 
a few. the Japan> Amateur Radio League (JARL) has worked with Icom to 
create D-Star.> D-Star supports user communications speeds up to 128kbps. 
The nicest> thing about it is that the interface is Ethernet! That makes 
it> relatively simple for most folks to connect.Yes, I think 
Ethernet or USB are the 'defacto' interface standards today.  Serial 
ports are also still pretty viable, IMO, given all the low cost USB 
<--> RS-232 converters available.  Using the old Centronics 
printer port was always a horrible hack, though... and using parallel ports 
in EPP or ECP mode tends to make porting to, e.g., Linux or Macs noticeably 
more difficult.[Woodrick, Ed] Parallel ports have all but disappeared. Serial ports 
are right behind. USB ports (not adapters) are peripheral connectivity ports of 
choice for most people now. But Ethernet is the NETWORK PORT OF 
CHOICE! > No special software or> cables, 
just a good ole Ethernet cable. But there are currently two> drawbacks, 
first, the repeaters are available yet, and second is the> price. 
I don't see why they don't just use WiFi or WiMax as their 'backbone' 
connection -- why this insistance on 10GHz hardware?  I mean, there's 
nothing wrong with it technologically, but by having to develop their 
own 10GHz transceivers they're significantly rasising the price of the 
system.[Woodrick, Ed] Hmmm, why would this not be a good idea? Because 
every computer user in the world has access to it? Now I'm not against it, 
and it would be good if amateurs built it, but it won't be an amateur network. 
But, what can happen is that the band utilization will increase, decreasing 
feasibility. > As with many new products, the 
price is rather high, higher than> most HF radios. People are so 
used to doing digital radio modes with soundcards that the rather limited 
bandwidth of them (<20kHz) will prevent their usage with higher speed 
(64kbps+) modes and we're back to separate TNC boxes.  Still, even in 
small runs I think you cab sell a decent TNC for <$500.Hmm... 
perhaps looking at those 96ksps 24bit sound cards wouldn't be such a bad 
idead...![Woodrick, Ed] No, they aren't used to soundcards. Actually a 
relatively small number use soundcards, primarily because it is a 
relatively small number that know how to turn a computer on. And it is not the 
sound cards that allow higher speeds. It's the radio

[digitalradio] Re: Winlink take over?

[Ed]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> 
> I may have some issues with the Winlink 2000 system but the ones you
mention
> below are not the ones.
> 
Steve

bravo, great logic, right on.

If we all only had a vote??? 

KT8U 






The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink take over?

[Ed]

I can't count the number of
personal messages and bulletins my packet BBS has forwarded in the last
10+ years. I'm glad not everyone thinks the way you do about automation
of text.
   BBS traffic (Packet) on dedicated channels is just fine, to
me.  What is scary is the push to open up our HF communications so
that automated data can share voice spectrum.

   Ed   K7AAT



The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/









Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.










Dial Broadband has arrived Nationwide! Up to 5 times faster than traditional dialup connections from $13.33/month! See the demo for yourself at www.BigValley.net

[digitalradio] Is packet dead (was Winlink take over) - aka learn from the past

[Woodrick, Ed]

idiots increases.
 
That's essentially 
what started happening to the packet network. With worldwide coverage, 
there were a  number of people who didn't know how to use packet properly. 
You know, sending a For Sale message for a HT in the US to For Sale - Europe! 
There were also a number of people that just couldn't help but interfere. Those 
are the same people that send Spam and Porn to the groups 
today
 
So what happened to 
Packet?
 
It collapsed under 
its own weight. 1200 bps is no where near fast enough for backbone 
communications (we were using 300 bps for HF) and the number of messages just 
clogged the system up. BBSs started implementing two ports, one for forwarding 
and another for users. That extended the life, but wasn't a solution. 

 
So Packet went from 
a network of lots of good information to thousands of For Sale messages that no 
one really cared about. The quality of information decreased dramatically. The 
reason why the thousands of people joined the network disappeared and people 
became disenfranchised with packet.
 
It was a meteoric 
life, just about 5 years. 
 
So, will Winlink 
take over? No. They'll possibly be able to create some buzz. They've mitigated 
some of the problems, like the backbone. But as long as they are using 1200 bps 
packet, they'll lay victim to the bandwidth limitation.
 
And that's the 
simple crux of the matter, bandwidth. This message would have taken hours to be 
sent over a multi-hop packet network. Message sizes were often limited to a few 
thousand characters. File transfers were possible, but only for very small files 
and often discouraged. And yes, that makes those text diehards really happy. But 
that doesn't make everyone happy. 
 
How many of you are 
on high-speed DSL/Cable modem connections? Why not on dial-up? Dial-up is just 
too slow for the communications that most of us do today. We are used to 
transferring MB files and high resolution photographs. Browsing web pages is one 
of our primary means of communications! This stuff just doesn't work on 1200 bps 
packet.
 
So, what options are 
there?
 
Not many. Which is 
possibly one of the reasons why it is hard to get youngsters involved in the 
organization. But there are a few. the Japan Amateur Radio League (JARL) has 
worked with Icom to create D-Star. D-Star supports user communications speeds up 
to 128kbps. The nicest thing about it is that the interface is Ethernet! That 
makes it relatively simple for most folks to connect. No special software or 
cables, just a good ole Ethernet cable. But there are currently two drawbacks, 
first, the repeaters are available yet, and second is the price. As with many 
new products, the price is rather high, higher than most HF radios. 

 
And you know, at 
128kbps, it really isn't fast enough to support the communications that we 
desire today. To do that would require connectivity comparable to DSL/Cable, an 
order of magnitude higher. But at least D-Star works, it's here and it's fairly 
reliable. Now we just need to build the network to support 
it.
 
 
Ed - 
WA4YIH
 


The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/









Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

RE: [digitalradio] USB 5.1 Audio Adapter

[Woodrick, Ed]

They work fine. You are probably feeding the wrong level of haven't
figured out which is the correct slider for volume control.



From: mac2251 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Saturday, March 26, 2005 9:46 AM
Posted To: FT-817
Conversation: [digitalradio] USB 5.1 Audio Adapter
Subject: [digitalradio] USB 5.1 Audio Adapter



   Does anyone have a USB audio adapter and how did they get it to 
transmit?  Mine works great for receiving but won't  transmit.  I 
must  be missing something obvious.  Any help would be 
appreciated...Mike K9HCK





The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/

http://dxcluster.blogspot.com";>http://feeds.feedburner.com/DigitalSpotter.gif"; height="67"
width="200" style="border:0" alt="Digital Spotter"/> 



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor   
ADVERTISEMENT
click here
  
 
   



Yahoo! Groups Links


*   To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/
  
*   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  
*   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service  . 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [digitalradio] PCI Card Modem

[Woodrick, Ed]

PC Modems..  that's becoming an antique concept.



From: RussellHltn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Saturday, March 26, 2005 9:22 PM
Posted To: FT-817
Conversation: [digitalradio] PCI Card Modem
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] PCI Card Modem


I think more then likely, that '97 era card is really an ISA card.  Many
computers in the last year or so don't have ISA slots anymore.  The
newer
PCI slots are quite new.  Do check on the height of what that new Dell
can
take as some new PCs only can take half-height cards.  (Yes, height, not
length.)  I'm sure the box any new cards come in gives clear
instructions in
the "System Requirements" section usually found on the side of the box.
I
think there's also a new "low voltage buss" as well, but things for it
are
going to be fairly rare.  

The stock PCI buss is still the primary standard (unless it's for a
video
card, in that case it's AGP.) 

-Original Message-
From: Vince [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 5:02 AM
To: Digital Radio
Subject: [digitalradio] PCI Card Modem



The mention of "the PCI card inputs (as opposed to the Drive Bay 
inputs) through the AC97 16 bit codec ... " in a recent posting here has
got
me wondering

I know less than nothing about AC97 16 bit codec, or codecs in general,
but
my plan to install a (1997 era) PCI modem card in my Dell XPS Gen 4 came
to
an abrupt halt when I found that the old card has two banks of connector
pins whereas, to my surprise,  each of the PCI socket receptacles within
this Dell PC accommodates a smaller length (less pins).  After reading a
web
page about PCI cards, I became clearly aware that there are 32 bit and
there
are 64 bit PCI cards. 

Anyway, to my question(s):

Since I am planning to install a PCI modem card soon, are the boxes
clearly
marked as PCI 32 bit or PCI 64 bit hardware cards? 
Or, asked another way, are present day PCI (modem) cards all of the 32
bit
type ?

Purchasing the wrong size PCI modem card is something that I want to
avoid.
Chances are good that I will purchase via Dell Online Store, but the
local
store is also a possibility. 

73, de ~ Vince ~
WA2RSX   IOTA  NA-026



The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/

http://dxcluster.blogspot.com";>http://feeds.feedburner.com/DigitalSpotter.gif"; height="67"
width="200"
style="border:0" alt="Digital Spotter"/> Yahoo! Groups Links









The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/

http://dxcluster.blogspot.com";>http://feeds.feedburner.com/DigitalSpotter.gif"; height="67"
width="200" style="border:0" alt="Digital Spotter"/> 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Source of Anti-Static Envelopes

[Ed]

I am sure if you search Google you
will find many uses for those AOL
CD's.  One story I heard was someone was going to have everyone
send
them to him and then when he got a million AOL CD's he was going to
dump them on AOL's door setp, HI.  Could be an "ubran
ledgend" story too.
  Or perhaps, if you live in New York, you could string them up for
miles in a park.  Call it art.  They seem to like that sort of
stuff there.  Might even get paid a couple hundred thousand for your
artistic efforts.

  Ed



The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/

http://dxcluster.blogspot.com">http://feeds.feedburner.com/DigitalSpotter.gif" height="67" width="200" style="border:0" alt="Digital Spotter"/>








Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


  ADVERTISEMENT 












Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.










Dial Broadband has arrived Nationwide! Up to 5 times faster than traditional dialup connections from $13.33/month! See the demo for yourself at www.BigValley.net

[digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques Needed to Mitigate Interference

[Ed]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Howard

Why don't you start a poll and see just how many on this group
(under FCC regulations) would be in favor of what you suport.

By the way, are you active on the various modes that this reflector
encourages. MFSK PSK31 and others?
I for one, am on tha air daily and see the result of semi automatic
operations.  I do see value in your point of view, but find
no use for services that allow for personal Email or messages
from the internet to be broadcast on Amatuer Radio.

I also have no use for the constant contest operation that spreads
out to the exclusion of other modes. Some rules are always needed.

I am having a hard time getting the connection between rich factory 
owners and a government that would allow its populace to starve by 
its actions and ham operators who have a point of view that is
different than yours.

Ed

 
> Again.. I have seen voluntary bandplans with Bandwith only 
regulation work in many countries already...they work well... they 
free up the ham population to innovate.. while the Luddites in the 
USA want to keep us in Technology jail with their fears of the 
future.
> 






The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/

http://dxcluster.blogspot.com";>http://feeds.feedburner.com/DigitalSpotter.gif"; height="67" width="200" 
style="border:0" alt="Digital Spotter"/> 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: RTTY Ops are RUDE

[Ed]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 I still use an IRL FSK-500 and a 286 machine but--
MMTTY at one time was one of the most downloaded programs out there
at over 88,000 downloads (saw that on the web some where) so there
must be a lot of us that tried it is very nice to see the signal
and point and click.
I got got on and told a ja6/hi8 that he was in the middle of the
PSK segment and asked him to move.  He wanted to know which way?
I just scratched my head and shut the rig off. 

KT8U
 
> Most I run into are using machine or TNC. Very few software only
> QSO's... (seems their always on USB all the time)
> 
> Regardless, I will not go below 075 and most of the time below
> 077...
> 
> Ain't nothing like that type box banging CQ or RY's onto the paper.
> 
> 
> 
> At 12:33 PM 2/14/05, you wrote:
> 
> >John,
> >You have a newfangled model 28.  I started on a tape printer and 
the a
> >model 15 and a model 19.  But I always used a tuning scope with 
the
> >filter outputs on X and Y and tuned for the two ellipses.  You 
might try
> >hooking your RX output up to a cheap computer for a spectrum 
display.
> >
> >Is RTTY still mostly a hardware mode?  I wonder what percentage 
of RTTY
> >signals in contests are computers and what percentage are glass 
TTY and
> >what percentage are Heathkit Marauders running FSK with a 
interface box
> >made of AF capacitors and 88mH toroids.
> >I bet most of the serious contesters have a spectrum display, and 
you do
> >see QSOs going on around you that way.
> >
> >In other words, people who are unable to hear or see the QSOs 
going on
> >know this and should take care to limit their operations so as 
not to
> >cause interference.  That is the law, right?  And people who do 
know and
> >choose to blast away are causing interference, again contrary to 
law.
> >And people who run high power and poor receivers are arguably 
using more
> >power than necessary to sustain communications.  Again, against 
the
> >law.
> >
> >The only people I have no sympathy for are PSK operators without 
filters
> >who complain about *neighboring* RTTY.  That is their own 
equipment
> >limitation, and they have to live with it.
> >
> >The two cases of RTTY ops who can't tell ot can tell and don't 
care are
> >the ones I am concerned about.  These folks should avoid 14.070,
> >period.  If you have a good receiver, matching power level, and 
can
> >assure with a spectrum display that your tones are not on someone 
elses,
> >then take the gloves off.  But my guess is that this is not the 
cases
> >that we are seeing.
> >
> >Leigh.






The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/

Discussion Forums at http://www.obriensweb.com



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/