[digitalradio] how to install TNC with SL/USB at same time?
Did not really find much on the subject. am presently running a TS-480 with a SL/USB into a WinXP Pro laptop for MARS. I want to plug in my PK232 USB as part of this semipermanent install which is really working very well. I am using the setup for Army MARS data transfer during training and actual incidents .. last being Edouard and Dolly. It works great! But I want to plug my TNC which is a completely upgraded PK232 with all the bells and whistles for low power, internal sound card, USB, etc to give me the additional Pactor I capability. Is there a way to share the PTT connection between the laptop>Signalink>TS480 so that it becomes a matter of switching from the MixW to the Pactor SW and back again? with no changes on cables, physical switches, etc??? Hope this is more clear than I am afraid that I have made it. thanks 73 de chas k5dam AAR6TU ...
Re: [digitalradio] The decline of Olivia and DominoEX
Rick, a big plus to me is FEC, I do not see that you mentioned that in your comparisons. to me, that is a major deficiency in an otherwise interesting report. could you supplement?? thanks chas K5DAM Rick wrote: > From my perspective, perhaps some of the reasons are: > > - Some digital programs only support a few modes, but typically they are > all going to support PSK31 and RTTY > > - As new modes are developed, they are invariably going to be compared > to the existing leaders and need to have some compelling new advantages. > > - At first many of us are curious and want to try out the mode to see > how it performs (or not). But after a few months, it may be found to > have certain undesirable traits compared to the baseline modes (even > though it may also have some desirable traits). > > - Most new modes do not seem to have significant improvements over > existing modes if you take the tradeoffs into consideration. Does the > new mode have adequate keyboard speed like PSK31? Is it an efficient, > narrow mode, or a wide bandwidth mode that may not have a large > advantage? Is it easy to tune in and tolerant of not having to be > exactly on frequency? Does it have much latency (the time it takes to > quit sending the data)? > > Looking at specific modes: > > - RTTY for contesting due to having low latency and ability to have the > quick turn around that contesters require and adequate speed of 60 wpm > with 45 baud RTTY. Other modes, including PSK, do not do well in that > environment > > - PSK31 for most chats. Speed about 40 wpm, can handle more ISI than > RTTY, very sensitive, very narrow mode. > > - Olivia is relatively slow and in order to have the more robust > protocols is relatively wide with the 8 tone/1000 Hz mode which has a > speed just under 60 wpm so is incredibly wide compared to PSK31 but with > better throughput. Many of the Olivia modes are under 30 wpm and even > under 20 wpm! Can handle polar flutter. > > - MT-63 has good speed, but not very sensitive and has the wide > bandwidth, hard to tune with weak signals, but can handle severe > interference and ISI with a fair to good signal. Has very significant > latency after the data is entered until it is all sent. Typically over 6 > seconds delay, but very good at handling selective fading. > > - MFSK16 has very good weak signal capability, narrow bandwidth, slow > baud rate very good tolerance to . Difficult to tune in and can not > tolerate much frequency error. > > - DominoEX seemed like a good mode, and excels at handling ISI with > slower speeds as needed, easy to tune in, good speed for the baud rate > with the 18 tone IFK, narrow bandwidth, but surprisingly can be affected > by the ionosphere quite severely. A real eye opener is the experience of > Rein, PA0R, when he attempted to use other protocols than PSK for > PSKmail. I think he was surprised how poorly the MFSK/IFK modes worked > compared to faster baud rate PSK. In fact, PSK125 seems to work very > well with an ARQ mode. > > - CHIP modes were mostly experimental and did not perform well at least > at the 300 baud rate, not very sensitive, prone to errors, modest speed > considering the baud rate. > > - THROB and THROBX, with the very slow speeds can go deeper into the > noise with an multitone FSKsignal but at the speeds competitive with > PSK31, perhaps not that much of an improvement in performance. > > Consider that after all these years, with their third change in modems, > SCS designed the Pactor 3 protocol to: > > - keep the symbol rate at 100 baud instead of switching between 200 baud > as done in P2 > - keep the constellation simpler at only 2PSK and 4PSK, not even 8PSK > - avoid ASK modes which they found years ago did not work well on HF > - use multiple tones that can be dropped off when conditions get rough > in order to have wider spacing > > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] The decline of Olivia and DominoEX
Andrew O'Brien wrote: > What happened? It seemed that Olivia was poised to become the third > most popular digital data mode (after PSK and RTTY). Now OLivia and > also DominoEX are way down in use. I think that PSK and RTTY are > still number 1 and 2, JT65A appears to be number 3 followed by MFSK16 > and Hell. Heck, I think you will here more ALE and PSK125 than you > will hear Olivia these days. > > Andy K3UK > www.obriensweb.com neither one is ported to Mac OS X... wish Olivia were as well as MT63. those are the most popular for MARS digital. fwiw chas/k5dam
Re: [digitalradio] Signalink USB and MixW problems!!
Andrew O'Brien wrote: > Chasm, I will forward this to our MixW help mail list and see if we can get > this figured out. > > Andy K3UK thank you, I was thinking that there was such a list. I also hope that there are others running the same conbination of OS and VM. 73/chas K5DAM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Installing Signalink USB on OSX 10.0???
on our MARS Alpha net tonight here in Texas, I asked what modes were most important to have in the stable and the answer was... Pactor I, Olivia, MT63 and PSK31... not in that order. The Signalink has a Doze mini CD which allows you to do all of the above except Olivia as I remember. You can RX Pactor I and the rest are simple. in fact, you do not even have to buy MixW for most of the modes. However, that little CD might as well not have been shipped to me at all. So, Neither Cocoa nor Multi will RX Olivia OR Pactor but both will do MT63 and PSK31. In fact, I am not sure that Multi will even do plain PSK31, but will do 4 variations of the basic. or is that Cocoa? get confused. So, I suppose that I really do not need a shell program to run these 4 modes do I? Can't I simply load them into a directory or install them in the OVerflow and just click on them as I need them?? ie, IF I can find a MAC version of Olivia or Pactor I. thanks chas Paul wrote: > Cocoamodem is Free, Multimode costs $90. I mostly use CocoaModem for > watching PSK when I'm working at the Mac. If I see something > interesting I switch over to a dedicated PC I bought for about $50 on > an auction site. The ham software doesn't need today's cpu horsepower > - especially if you stick to a simplified operating system. I was > doing well with a 400Mhz Pentium II running Win98SE. I moved up to > Pentium III and Win XP home because, understandably, some authors are > no longer supporting Win93SE. > > I love the Mac and understand about using VirtualPC to simulate > windows and Boot Camp, etc. But I love simplicity too. And people are > giving away Pentium III boxes that would make great Ham Only gear. In > fact, on another action, I'd see 16 Pentium IV computers for about > $300 total Buy It Now. They all needed RAM/HardDrive/OS - but at that > price, as a club project, for about $100 each, you'd end up with a > pretty good hassle free lower profile (not big tower) ham only > software control station. > 73, > Paul
[digitalradio] Installing Signalink USB on OSX 10.0???
my Signalink USB arrived this afternoon. install instructions say it will run under Mac OSX 10.0+ but shows only how to install it on Doze. Has anyone installed one of these on 10.4+? would appreciate a pointer towards the instructions for sound card settings, etc thanks 73/chas K5DAM
[digitalradio] Re: Basic Question On Icom 706 and Rascal interface
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That same friend referenced in the Kenwood related message may use the > Icom 706 MKII with his Rascal interface (USB/serial). Does the Rascal > have the CI-V "thing" that Icom's require or does he need this in > addition ? > Am I wrong? I thought that all the 7xx series Icoms which had CI-V needed only an interface cable between the remote outport on the back of the radio and a USB or a 232 serial port (depending on the cable)? Software from Icom I suppose would be necessary but there was no need for a CT-17 or a rascal or a rigbuster, etc. If this is incorrect, please let me know. I am just now getting into HF Digital and know NOTHING about hardware, software or peripherals. All I know is what I am getting from bothering elmers and googling. Should be a decent book or FAQ on the subject. 73 chas K5DAM/AAR6TU 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/
