Re: [digitalradio] Re: IZ8BLY's PSK63F
Skip Excellent observations. philw de ka1gmn On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 6:38 PM, KH6TY wrote: > > > On UHF and VHF, Doppler spread, often found a very fast rate, causes the > "dots" of DominoEx to "smear" or elongate horizontally on the waterfall. > When there is a slow or large constant Doppler shift, such as when an > airplane is passing overhead, the dot pattern skews from one side or the > other of the main pattern. For PSK63, the parallel carriers slant starting > at one side of the "normal" carrier, and pass through the image of the > "normal" carrier, completely blocking printing when it coincides with the > main signal, even if the signal is strong (the multipath reflection is also > strong...). As it moves to the other other side, printing resumes. We often > see this effect on 144 Mhz when it is a gusty day and gusts blow by. This > makes PSK31 unusable on 144MHz, PSK63 is better, and DominoEX is best. > PSK63F does not seem to be as good as DominoEx, because the signal actually > shifts tone frequency, and is therefore mistuned, but DominoEx can tolerate > a shift of 50% of the signal width and still print. Our tests on 144Mhz and > 432 MHz suggest the PSK63F is about equal to DominoEX 8 in sensitivity, not > as good as PSK31, but that is on VHF/UHF. DominoEx 8 would print when PSK63 > failed under QSB with signals near the noise. > > Tony, a comparison of PSK63F to DominoEX 8 and DominoEX4 on your simulator > would be very appreciated! > > 73 > > Skip KH6TY > > > > > Tony wrote: > > > > > Phil, > > > It would be valuable to the community to be able to recognize the > presence of Doppler spread by some visual or > > aural means. > > There are times when the effect can be detected by sight and sound. Even > a moderate disturbance in the polar ionosphere can cause enough > Doppler spread to make HF voice communications sound hollow or as if the > signal was emanating from under water. The same applies to CW and digital > mode signals. > > Visually, narrow band modes like PSK31 will appear dispersed (spread > out) compared to others in the waterfall. The individual tones that make up > wide-band signals (MFSK) will also appear diffuse. Other visual > indications of Doppler induced frequency dispersions caused by signals > that propagate over the poles, would be the chaotic movement of the PSK31 > tuning indicator. > > Although there are times when Doppler spread is too small to be detected, > it can still cause throughput problems with certain modes. The amount of > throughput loss depends on the severity of the Doppler > spread and how resistant the mode is to that type of distortion. Narrow > modes like PSK10, for example, are especially sensitive to small frequency > spreads (1Hz) and can suffer throughput loss on a relatively quiet > mid-latitude path. > > The reflecting surface of the ionosphere is somewhat similar to the surface > of a pool of water where waves are traveling in all directions. As sunlight > hits the pools surface, the motion of the waves cause the light to scatter > at random. With RF waves, the motion of the > ionospheric irregularities cause random shifts in frequency creating > wavelets around the main signal (see attached: Normal vs. Doppler spread). > > Doppler spread is more pronounced in the active regions of the auroral and > equatorial zones than it is in the mid-latitudes. Its common to see an > increase in the effect on long distance contacts since the signal > will eventually end up near those regions. How much it effects digital mode > throughput depends on the state of the ionosphere and the mode in use. > > As for PSK63F, it combats this type of distortion much better than standard > PSK modes. > > Tony -K2MO > > - Original Message - > From: Phil Williams > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 8:49 AM > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] IZ8BLY's PSK63F > > > > > Demonstrating a suite of digital coding methods are vulnerable to Doppler > spread does not tell the whole story. What does the signal look like on the > a spectrogram when subjected to Doppler spread? Yes, you have incomplete or > scrambled text, but then the root cause of that could be anything. > > It would be valuable to the community to be able to recognize the presence > of Doppler spread by some visual or aural means. Armed with this > information then one begins to make choices of other modes that would be > less vulnerable to the effects of Doppler spread. > > philw de ka1gmn > > > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:13 AM, Tony wrote: > > > Phil, > > > > What about PSKFEC31 under the same test scenarios? > > Have a look: > > > Path Simulation: High Latitude (Moderate) > Path Delay: 3ms, Doppler spread 10Hz > Pangram Text: Quick Brown Fox > > > > PSK31FEC > > t e tio E ttaeH loo etee- e e e ˆyaooe n o > ao t aeepvede n neete ueeeu .tna0 o een > it=pctidr a ieae t e tio E ttaeH loo etee- e e > etˆyaooe on oe ne 6etnuEenoel o·b geogtee > > > > PSK63F > > the quick br
Re: [digitalradio] Re: IZ8BLY's PSK63F
Skip, It's good to see that there is a correlation between the path simulator results and real world sensitivity testing. White noise tests show that DominoEX4 does have the same 3db sensitivity advantage you mentioned over DominoEX8 and PSK63F. > we did extensive testing this morning on 70cm between PSK63F and DominoEx 4, > and DominoEx4, even under > the severe, fast Doppler shift almost always on that band, was significantly > better copy than PSK63F. The minimum > required S/N of PSK63F compared to > DominoEx 4 also hurt its relative performance compared to DominoEx 4 in > QSB. I can see how the minimum SNR would come into play. I know it's easier said than done, but It would be interesting to repeat the tests while signals were adequately above the minimum SNR threshold required for PSK63F and DominoEX8. That would eliminate any signal strength issues and help reveal the true Doppler performance of each mode. It would help to have a recording of the signals so we can analyze the Doppler spread using a high resolution spectrogram. This would give us a better idea of what's going on and should reveal other frequency shifting characteristics such as aircraft Doppler. It would also be useful to have statistical data on the Doppler spread found on over-the-horizon VHF / UHF propagation. Troposcatter seems to be responsible for daily openings on VHF / UHF. I'll have to look on the net. > If you could make simulation tests between PSK63F, DominoEx 4 and DominoEx 8, > it would help us find > out the best mode to recommend for VHF/UHF. We will be making more real world > tests again this week > on both two meters and 70cm. No problem Skip. Tony -K2MO - Original Message - From: hteller To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 9:17 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: IZ8BLY's PSK63F Tony, we did extensive testing this morning on 70cm between PSK63F and DominoEx 4, and DominoEx4, even under the severe, fast Doppler shift almost always on that band, was significantly better copy than PSK63F when signals were just over the noise. The minimum required S/N of PSK63F compared to DominoEx 4 also hurt its relative performance compared to DominoEx 4 in QSB. We did not have time to compare to DominoEx 8, which is roughly the same speed as PSK63F, but our previous tests between DominoEx 4 and DominoEx 8 showed that on VHF and UHF, either SSB or FM, that the 3 dB minimum S/N advantage of DominoEx 4 is very necessary. Signals at 200 miles are almost always just above the noise on SSB phone or DominoEx 4 on 70 cm. That is why operators on those bands are called "weak signal" operators! If you could make simulation tests between PSK63F, DominoEx 4 and DominoEx 8, it would help us find out the best mode to recommend for VHF/UHF. We will be making more real world tests again this week on both two meters and 70cm. 73 Skip KH6TY > __ > 1a. IZ8BLY's PSK63F > Posted by: "Tony" d...@optonline.net kt2q > Date: Mon Jan 4, 2010 12:52 am ((PST)) > > All, > > Recent path simulation tests indicate that Nino Porcino's PSK63F > offers better performance over PSK31 and PSK63 in a couple of areas. > The most significant improvement is it's ability to endure Doppler > spread found on paths that cross the polar ionosphere. Both PSK31 and > PSK63 fail miserably in this area; see high-lat test samples below. > > Path Simulation: High Latitude (Moderate) Path Delay: 3ms, Doppler > spread 10Hz > Pangram Text: Quick Brown Fox > > PSK63F -- the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog > PSK63 -- mev roe tt#dtorl|f- bn ô mp e o ihe Fzy dg > PSK31 -- nls oSer Òe naAeta qlipM h nV o T rn agâ o > RTTY -- TH QACKH492, FOJUMP OR THTLAZY G > > Sensitivity-wise, it's quite a bit more sensitivity than PSK63, but > only marginally better than PSK31. Although it's speed is about 25% > faster than PSK31, it's about 40% slower than PSK63. Average wmp rate > seems to be 63 wpm for PSK63F. > > Lowest S/N (sensitivity) > > PSK63F -12db > PSK63 -7db > PSK31 -11db > RTTY -5db > > Additional path tests indicate that PSK31 and PSK63F perform about the > same under moderate mid-latitude conditions (CCIR fading channel). > Tests show that PSK31 and PSK63F will outperform PSK63 when signals > are weak under quiet conditions since they both have greater sensitivity. > > It would be interesting to hear from our HF digital friends up north > who experience the distorting effects of the polar ionosphere on a > regular basis; this is where the PSK63F mode can be put to the test. > > Available software: > > Nino Porcino's Stream -- http://xoomer.virgilio.it/aporcino/ > Patrick Lindeckers Multipsk -- http://f6cte.free.fr/index_anglais.htm > (thanks for including PSK63F Patrick) > > Tony, K2MO > >
[digitalradio] Re: IZ8BLY's PSK63F [3 Attachments]
Phil, > It would be valuable to the community to be able to recognize the presence of > Doppler spread by some visual or > aural means. There are times when the effect can be detected by sight and sound. Even a moderate disturbance in the polar ionosphere can cause enough Doppler spread to make HF voice communications sound hollow or as if the signal was emanating from under water. The same applies to CW and digital mode signals. Visually, narrow band modes like PSK31 will appear dispersed (spread out) compared to others in the waterfall. The individual tones that make up wide-band signals (MFSK) will also appear diffuse. Other visual indications of Doppler induced frequency dispersions caused by signals that propagate over the poles, would be the chaotic movement of the PSK31 tuning indicator. Although there are times when Doppler spread is too small to be detected, it can still cause throughput problems with certain modes. The amount of throughput loss depends on the severity of the Doppler spread and how resistant the mode is to that type of distortion. Narrow modes like PSK10, for example, are especially sensitive to small frequency spreads (1Hz) and can suffer throughput loss on a relatively quiet mid-latitude path. The reflecting surface of the ionosphere is somewhat similar to the surface of a pool of water where waves are traveling in all directions. As sunlight hits the pools surface, the motion of the waves cause the light to scatter at random. With RF waves, the motion of the ionospheric irregularities cause random shifts in frequency creating wavelets around the main signal (see attached: Normal vs. Doppler spread). Doppler spread is more pronounced in the active regions of the auroral and equatorial zones than it is in the mid-latitudes. Its common to see an increase in the effect on long distance contacts since the signal will eventually end up near those regions. How much it effects digital mode throughput depends on the state of the ionosphere and the mode in use. As for PSK63F, it combats this type of distortion much better than standard PSK modes. Tony -K2MO - Original Message - From: Phil Williams To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 8:49 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] IZ8BLY's PSK63F Demonstrating a suite of digital coding methods are vulnerable to Doppler spread does not tell the whole story. What does the signal look like on the a spectrogram when subjected to Doppler spread? Yes, you have incomplete or scrambled text, but then the root cause of that could be anything. It would be valuable to the community to be able to recognize the presence of Doppler spread by some visual or aural means. Armed with this information then one begins to make choices of other modes that would be less vulnerable to the effects of Doppler spread. philw de ka1gmn On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:13 AM, Tony wrote: Phil, > What about PSKFEC31 under the same test scenarios? Have a look: Path Simulation: High Latitude (Moderate) Path Delay: 3ms, Doppler spread 10Hz Pangram Text: Quick Brown Fox PSK31FEC t e tio E ttaeH loo etee- e e e ˆyaooe n o ao t aeepvede n neete ueeeu .tna0 o een it=pctidr a ieae t e tio E ttaeH loo etee- e e etˆyaooe on oe ne 6etnuEenoel o·b geogtee PSK63F the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog Tony -K2MO - Original Message - From: Phil Williams To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 5:16 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] IZ8BLY's PSK63F Very interesting. What about PSKFEC31 under the same test scenarios? Certainly, there would be more a in throughput, but that is a matter of some liberal use of CW shorthand. philw de ka1gmn On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Tony wrote: All, Recent path simulation tests indicate that Nino Porcino's PSK63F offers better performance over PSK31 and PSK63 in a couple of areas. The most significant improvement is it's ability to endure Doppler spread found on paths that cross the polar ionosphere. Both PSK31 and PSK63 fail miserably in this area; see high-lat test samples below. Path Simulation: High Latitude (Moderate) Path Delay: 3ms, Doppler spread 10Hz Pangram Text: Quick Brown Fox PSK63F -- the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog PSK63 -- mev roe tt#dtorl|f- bn ô mp e o ihe Fzy dg PSK31 -- nls oSer Òe naAeta qlipM h nV o T rn agâ o RTTY -- TH QACKH492, FOJUMP OR THTLAZY G Sensitivity-wise, it's quite a bit more sensitivity than PSK63, but only marginally better than PSK31. Although it's speed is about 25% faster than PSK31, it's about 40% slower than PSK63. Average wmp rate seems to be 63 wpm for PSK63F. Lowest S/N (sensitivity) PSK63F -12db PSK63 -7db PSK31 -11db RTTY -5db Additional path tests indicate that PSK31 and PSK63F perform about the same under moderat
[digitalradio] Re: IZ8BLY's PSK63F
Tony, we did extensive testing this morning on 70cm between PSK63F and DominoEx 4, and DominoEx4, even under the severe, fast Doppler shift almost always on that band, was significantly better copy than PSK63F when signals were just over the noise. The minimum required S/N of PSK63F compared to DominoEx 4 also hurt its relative performance compared to DominoEx 4 in QSB. We did not have time to compare to DominoEx 8, which is roughly the same speed as PSK63F, but our previous tests between DominoEx 4 and DominoEx 8 showed that on VHF and UHF, either SSB or FM, that the 3 dB minimum S/N advantage of DominoEx 4 is very necessary. Signals at 200 miles are almost always just above the noise on SSB phone or DominoEx 4 on 70 cm. That is why operators on those bands are called "weak signal" operators! If you could make simulation tests between PSK63F, DominoEx 4 and DominoEx 8, it would help us find out the best mode to recommend for VHF/UHF. We will be making more real world tests again this week on both two meters and 70cm. 73 Skip KH6TY > ___ > 1a. IZ8BLY's PSK63F > Posted by: "Tony" d...@optonline.net kt2q > Date: Mon Jan 4, 2010 12:52 am ((PST)) > > All, > > Recent path simulation tests indicate that Nino Porcino's PSK63F > offers better performance over PSK31 and PSK63 in a couple of areas. > The most significant improvement is it's ability to endure Doppler > spread found on paths that cross the polar ionosphere. Both PSK31 and > PSK63 fail miserably in this area; see high-lat test samples below. > > Path Simulation: High Latitude (Moderate) Path Delay: 3ms, Doppler > spread 10Hz > Pangram Text: Quick Brown Fox > > PSK63F -- the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog > PSK63-- mev roe tt#dtorl|f- bn ô mp e o ihe Fzy dg > PSK31-- nls oSer Òe naAeta qlipM h nV o T rn agâ o > RTTY -- TH QACKH492, FOJUMP OR THTLAZY G > > Sensitivity-wise, it's quite a bit more sensitivity than PSK63, but > only marginally better than PSK31. Although it's speed is about 25% > faster than PSK31, it's about 40% slower than PSK63. Average wmp rate > seems to be 63 wpm for PSK63F. > > Lowest S/N (sensitivity) > > PSK63F -12db > PSK63 -7db > PSK31 -11db > RTTY -5db > > Additional path tests indicate that PSK31 and PSK63F perform about the > same under moderate mid-latitude conditions (CCIR fading channel). > Tests show that PSK31 and PSK63F will outperform PSK63 when signals > are weak under quiet conditions since they both have greater sensitivity. > > It would be interesting to hear from our HF digital friends up north > who experience the distorting effects of the polar ionosphere on a > regular basis; this is where the PSK63F mode can be put to the test. > > Available software: > > Nino Porcino's Stream -- http://xoomer.virgilio.it/aporcino/ > Patrick Lindeckers Multipsk -- http://f6cte.free.fr/index_anglais.htm > (thanks for including PSK63F Patrick) > > Tony, K2MO > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: IZ8BLY's PSK63F + PSKFEC31
That is odd. I wonder which psk31 software you are using. I use WinWarbler, and it is able to copy almost every signal seen across a wide spectrum of 2 K or so, at any given time. Few if any of them are uncopyable. It copies traces that I can barely see, as well as spurs up and down the band from people running thos 50 watt rigs. Fyi , I run wideband copy, meaning there may be 40 signals across the spectrum I can see on the waterfall, and with my normal TS570S SSB filter. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB All 2 years or more (except Novice). Short stints at: DA/PA/SU/HZ/7X/DU CR9/7Y/KH7/5A/GW/GM/F Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for those who do. Moderator DXandTALK http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk Digital_modes http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digital_modes/?yguid=341090159 - Original Message - From: Glenn L. Roeser To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 2:34 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: IZ8BLY's PSK63F + PSKFEC31 Hello Skip, I hope that shift happens because with the band conditions the way they have been, we do need something other than PSK31. Most of my PSK31 contacts are not very good print and I lose a lot of what is being sent due to QSB. And I have noticed that the power levels are creeping up and up. Years ago the top power levels for most PSK31 ops was about 15 watts output, now the norm is 35 - 50 watts. And even with higher power levels they print is far from being 100% print. Let's see if it catches on. Time will tell. Very 73, Glenn (WB2LMV) -- From: KH6TY To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, January 5, 2010 10:50:20 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: IZ8BLY's PSK63F + PSKFEC31 Glenn, I think in this case, it will be possible to see a paradigm shift if we start a major movement to PSK63F. The typing speed is as fast as PSK31, and the tuning is just as easy (not so with MFSK16), and if the minimum S/N is truly better than PSK31, hams will gravitate toward that like they gravitate to Olivia (which is uncomfortably slow). The gravitation is always toward the best performing mode, if there isn't anything else that makes it undesirable or hard to use. The problem is letting everyone know what mode is being used, and if RSID can do that, I suggest that serious activity on PSK63F be started right away just above the PSK31 activity. It is essential to know where to look for a particular mode as it is especially confusing to see a PSK63 signal and not have it decode because it is PSK63F. We will be adding PSK63F to fldigi very shortly. 73 Skip KH6TY Glenn L. Roeser wrote: It seems to me that we have been down this road before comparing the different digital modes. One thing is for certain, no matter what modes there are that may do much better than PSK31, 99% of all operators will always use PSK31. It is almost impossible to get more than 3% of the operators to try something new. Very 73 to all, Glenn (WB2LMV) From: Vojtech To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Tue, January 5, 2010 7:41:56 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: IZ8BLY's PSK63F + PSKFEC31 PSK63F is implemented in PocketDigi, source code is available. > PSK63F is in all cases better than PSK31. The only advantage of PSK31 is its smaller bandwidth. The other benefit of PSK31 is quick turnaround. But I agree that PSK63F shall be exercised and will be very useful at marginal conditions. 73, Vojtech
Re: [digitalradio] Re: IZ8BLY's PSK63F + PSKFEC31
Hello Skip, I hope that shift happens because with the band conditions the way they have been, we do need something other than PSK31. Most of my PSK31 contacts are not very good print and I lose a lot of what is being sent due to QSB. And I have noticed that the power levels are creeping up and up. Years ago the top power levels for most PSK31 ops was about 15 watts output, now the norm is 35 - 50 watts. And even with higher power levels they print is far from being 100% print. Let's see if it catches on. Time will tell. Very 73, Glenn (WB2LMV) From: KH6TY To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, January 5, 2010 10:50:20 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: IZ8BLY's PSK63F + PSKFEC31 Glenn, I think in this case, it will be possible to see a paradigm shift if we start a major movement to PSK63F. The typing speed is as fast as PSK31, and the tuning is just as easy (not so with MFSK16), and if the minimum S/N is truly better than PSK31, hams will gravitate toward that like they gravitate to Olivia (which is uncomfortably slow). The gravitation is always toward the best performing mode, if there isn't anything else that makes it undesirable or hard to use. The problem is letting everyone know what mode is being used, and if RSID can do that, I suggest that serious activity on PSK63F be started right away just above the PSK31 activity. It is essential to know where to look for a particular mode as it is especially confusing to see a PSK63 signal and not have it decode because it is PSK63F. We will be adding PSK63F to fldigi very shortly. 73 Skip KH6TY Glenn L. Roeser wrote: >It seems to me that we have been down this road before comparing the different >digital modes. One thing is for certain, no matter what modes there are that >may do much better than PSK31, 99% of all operators will always use PSK31. >It is almost impossible to get more than 3% of the operators to try something >new. >Very 73 to all, Glenn (WB2LMV) > > > > From: Vojtech >To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com >Sent: Tue, January 5, 2010 7:41:56 AM >Subject: [digitalradio] Re: IZ8BLY's PSK63F + PSKFEC31 > > >PSK63F is implemented in PocketDigi, source code is available. > >> PSK63F is in all cases better than PSK31. The only advantage of PSK31 is its >> smaller bandwidth. > >The other benefit of PSK31 is quick turnaround. But I agree that PSK63F shall >be exercised and will be very useful at marginal conditions. > >73, Vojtech > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: IZ8BLY's PSK63F + PSKFEC31
Hello John, I like to use all the different modes that are available, and I have spent a lot of time on the air using various modes other than PSK31. I have spent a lot of time calling CQ with the RSID on and I come up empty handed. More than once I was calling CQ with the RSID on using PSKFEC31, only to have someone answer me with PSK31 dead on my trace. I switch over to PSK31 and end up having a QSO. Just pick any band and see what everyone is using. Go on 20 meters and look at all the PSK31 traces. That is what I am saying. Forget the percentages just go and take a look at what the majority of the signals are. Every new digital mode that comes out has it's 15 minutes of fame then it fades away and back to PSK31 we go. Yes there are other modes being used, but PSK31 is king and will always be. I prefer to be on the air then have a pissing match on the email reflector, so this is my final word on the matter. Very 73 to all in the group. Glenn (WB2LMV) From: Music Maker To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, January 5, 2010 10:41:45 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: IZ8BLY's PSK63F + PSKFEC31 Glenn, 99% will always use PSK 31 ... ??? - Only 3% will try something new ?? ... !! I assume that this survey for percentages, was completed after we switched from using teleprinters and RTTY or to Packet, AMTOR, or even back in the good old days when we stopped using AM and started using SSB (We used to call it 'Phone'). I suspect a lot more than 3% have open minds to evaluate different advances, or that 99% will always use the same mode. If not, then we would still be using separate Transmitters with a apark gap and Receivers with a crystal and Cats whisker, and sending each other Morse. At least in those days we didn't have Call Signs, We all knew each other, and Pontious Pilot was an Air Cadet !!! 73's John www.John4Music. TV . . . . . . . . . . . .. --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, "Glenn L. Roeser" wrote: > > It seems to me that we have been down this road before comparing the > different digital modes. One thing is for certain, no matter what modes there > are that may do much better than PSK31, 99% of all operators will always use > PSK31. > It is almost impossible to get more than 3% of the operators to try something > new. > Very 73 to all, Glenn (WB2LMV) > > > > > _ _ __ > From: Vojtech bubn...@... > To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com > Sent: Tue, January 5, 2010 7:41:56 AM > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: IZ8BLY's PSK63F + PSKFEC31 > > Â > PSK63F is implemented in PocketDigi, source code is available. > > > PSK63F is in all cases better than PSK31. The only advantage of PSK31 is > > its smaller bandwidth. > > The other benefit of PSK31 is quick turnaround. But I agree that PSK63F shall > be exercised and will be very useful at marginal conditions. > > 73, Vojtech >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: IZ8BLY's PSK63F + PSKFEC31
Last weekend was the RTTY contest. All digital mode were eligible. All I heard was RTTY. I am only able to receive on 40M and 20M at the present time. The propagation is in the sewer so I was very limited on what I could hear. I am near Seattle and the only stations I was able to copy were in 6 Land. All I was able to hear was RTTY. I did not hear any PSK. I get the impression that RTTY is still the predominant digital mode. Bob Macklin K5MYJ Seattle, Wa. "Real Radios Glow In The Dark" - Original Message - From: Music Maker To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 7:41 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: IZ8BLY's PSK63F + PSKFEC31 Glenn, 99% will always use PSK 31 ... ???- Only 3% will try something new ?? ... !! I assume that this survey for percentages, was completed after we switched from using teleprinters and RTTY or to Packet, AMTOR, or even back in the good old days when we stopped using AM and started using SSB (We used to call it 'Phone'). I suspect a lot more than 3% have open minds to evaluate different advances, or that 99% will always use the same mode. If not, then we would still be using separate Transmitters with a apark gap and Receivers with a crystal and Cats whisker, and sending each other Morse. At least in those days we didn't have Call Signs, We all knew each other, and Pontious Pilot was an Air Cadet !!! 73's John www.John4Music.TV . --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Glenn L. Roeser" wrote: > > It seems to me that we have been down this road before comparing the different digital modes. One thing is for certain, no matter what modes there are that may do much better than PSK31, 99% of all operators will always use PSK31. > It is almost impossible to get more than 3% of the operators to try something new. > Very 73 to all, Glenn (WB2LMV) > > > > > > From: Vojtech bubn...@... > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tue, January 5, 2010 7:41:56 AM > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: IZ8BLY's PSK63F + PSKFEC31 > > Â > PSK63F is implemented in PocketDigi, source code is available. > > > PSK63F is in all cases better than PSK31. The only advantage of PSK31 is its smaller bandwidth. > > The other benefit of PSK31 is quick turnaround. But I agree that PSK63F shall be exercised and will be very useful at marginal conditions. > > 73, Vojtech >
[digitalradio] Re: IZ8BLY's PSK63F + PSKFEC31
Glenn, 99% will always use PSK 31 ... ???- Only 3% will try something new ?? ... !! I assume that this survey for percentages, was completed after we switched from using teleprinters and RTTY or to Packet, AMTOR, or even back in the good old days when we stopped using AM and started using SSB (We used to call it 'Phone'). I suspect a lot more than 3% have open minds to evaluate different advances, or that 99% will always use the same mode. If not, then we would still be using separate Transmitters with a apark gap and Receivers with a crystal and Cats whisker, and sending each other Morse. At least in those days we didn't have Call Signs, We all knew each other, and Pontious Pilot was an Air Cadet !!! 73's John www.John4Music.TV \ . --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Glenn L. Roeser" wrote: > > It seems to me that we have been down this road before comparing the different digital modes. One thing is for certain, no matter what modes there are that may do much better than PSK31, 99% of all operators will always use PSK31. > It is almost impossible to get more than 3% of the operators to try something new. > Very 73 to all, Glenn (WB2LMV) > > > > > > From: Vojtech bubn...@... > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tue, January 5, 2010 7:41:56 AM > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: IZ8BLY's PSK63F + PSKFEC31 > > Â > PSK63F is implemented in PocketDigi, source code is available. > > > PSK63F is in all cases better than PSK31. The only advantage of PSK31 is its smaller bandwidth. > > The other benefit of PSK31 is quick turnaround. But I agree that PSK63F shall be exercised and will be very useful at marginal conditions. > > 73, Vojtech >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: IZ8BLY's PSK63F + PSKFEC31
It seems to me that we have been down this road before comparing the different digital modes. One thing is for certain, no matter what modes there are that may do much better than PSK31, 99% of all operators will always use PSK31. It is almost impossible to get more than 3% of the operators to try something new. Very 73 to all, Glenn (WB2LMV) From: Vojtech To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, January 5, 2010 7:41:56 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: IZ8BLY's PSK63F + PSKFEC31 PSK63F is implemented in PocketDigi, source code is available. > PSK63F is in all cases better than PSK31. The only advantage of PSK31 is its > smaller bandwidth. The other benefit of PSK31 is quick turnaround. But I agree that PSK63F shall be exercised and will be very useful at marginal conditions. 73, Vojtech
[digitalradio] Re: IZ8BLY's PSK63F + PSKFEC31
PSK63F is implemented in PocketDigi, source code is available. > PSK63F is in all cases better than PSK31. The only advantage of PSK31 is its > smaller bandwidth. The other benefit of PSK31 is quick turnaround. But I agree that PSK63F shall be exercised and will be very useful at marginal conditions. 73, Vojtech
