Re: [digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?
FWIW http://psk.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/pskstats.pl (see also http://psk.gladstonefamily.net/pskmap.html ) Well over 25,000 distinct callsigns seen on PSK over the last three months. I doubt anything will overtake PSK in popularity in this decade. Simon HB9DRV -- From: "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Metcalfe's Law states that the value of a telecommunications network > is proportional to the square of the number of users of the system. I > suspect that it also applies to digital modes. >
[digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?
Hi Rud. > The decoding delay is minimal and probably not even noticeable, even in chat > mode. The decoding delay will not be an issue in chat mode. But it is annoying for someone interesting in DXes or just high rate of QSOs. It will take too long to just decode call sign during CQ to find out whether one is interested to make QSO. This is one of the reasons CW is so popular. Trained operator is able to decode call sign darn fast. I have to improve myself in CW reception. I was never able to cross the boundary of counting dots and dashes. > The delay in a chat is waiting for a buffer to fill so the FEC packet can be > constructed. In non-FEC mode characters are sent as typed. So for a 20 > character message it requires the time for 20 keystrokes, calculation of the > FEC and then the transmission of the 20 characters plus FEC characters. The delay depends on FEC and interleaving. > It might be interesting to try the following: > 6. After the FEC is received and decoded the receiver displays any corrected > characters in the appropriate place on the display. This was proposed by Phill Karn in MFSK16 list some months ago. You could do it if you do do not have interleaving and use systematic code. With modes like MFSK16 you may only slightly improve decoding delay by using shorter Viterbi decoder. But the delay caused by interleaving and convolutional code is not avoidable. 73, Vojtech OK1IAK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?
I am daring to post my opinion after reading the previous ones on this thread. In general, ARQ modes can insure the delivery of almost 100% correct transfers. FEC can do nearly alike, but since there is no feedback, transfers may get corrupted as SNR drops. ARQ + FEC can achieve a lower retry rate. HF Packet was a reliable ARQ mode with low thruput due to a bad selection of layer 1, which originated on the wide availability of Bell 103 and V.21 modems by the time the choice was made. I played with an early Pactor implementation using a PC based software and a homebrew modem that did fairly well, but I used mostly for keyboarding ten years ago and did not attempt to rate it seriously. After I got my PTC-II I rarely used Pactor, having Pactor II at hand. Eventually I switched the ham BBS I ran from packet to P II, enjoying a tenfold increase of forwarding. Both pactor and packet are synchronous modes, but undoubtedly P II has a better suited modulation format for HF compared to Packet. P II includes FEC, maximum likelyhood (Viterbi) decoding, compression, which overall, conforms a "bag" full of clever coding and modulation "tricks" does FAR better than packet, AMTOR, and some other "legacy", less popular modes. "Fashions" cannot be disregarded. MultiPSK has a couple of improved packet modes (PAX 1/2) that I rarely find on the air. Seems that HF packet is already history and little can be done to revive it. For many hams without any Internet access nowadays (I know quite a few, I used to be one of them), and for many reasons, it has certainly been a sad loss. Certainly, cost is a factor. But it is also widely known that tastes and preferences vary widely, for a vast number of reasons and personal choices. This is a hobby. For reliable traffic, I believe an ARQ, or ARQ + FEC mode is the only serious choice. Compression is certainly an asset, as FBB, JNOS and some few other BBS programs for packet widely demonstrated, too. Otherwise, a keyboard chat mode is far more tolerant, as is common ragchewing QSO's in any mode, where errors are tolerable (mispronounciation, bad fists, bad typing skills or plain bad orthography), when "making a QSO" is all that matters. To reach a general agreement on this matters seems to me as hard as convincing the british and the rest of the europeans, or the south africans and most of the rest of Africa, that they are driving in the opposite lane, as both will swear that the other guy is the one who does... I would agree too that the Metcalfe's law, or something similar applies also in ham communications. Not only on digital, but on all modes. "Fashions" play a role here, too, as many long time hams may have experienced already. Having experienced both, I am able to enjoy either option, depending if I NEED reliable transfer, or I just want to socialize and chat for a while, or work some rare DX that just uses a laptop and a battery powered QRP radio on a rare place under a canvas tent. 73, Jose, CO2JA Dave Bernstein wrote: > Its more likely that they know exactly what they are missing -- but > don't believe its worth the extra cost to obtain it. > > Furthermore, there are still quite a few KAMs and PK232s around; the > incremental cost to their owners of running Pactor 1 would be very > low -- and yet this mode is not frequently heard. > > Metcalfe's Law states that the value of a telecommunications network > is proportional to the square of the number of users of the system. I > suspect that it also applies to digital modes. > > 73, > >Dave, AA6YQ > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> Ok I'll jump in on this one just once. >> >> I feel if such ARQ modes as Amtor or Pactor 1, 2 or 3 >> could be done via sound card. Most modes would be dead >> by noon tomorrow. >> >> But since they can't no need to go on. >> >> Some will never know what they are missing. >> >> >> John, W0JAB >> Louisiana, Missouri >> EM48LK
[digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?
Its more likely that they know exactly what they are missing -- but don't believe its worth the extra cost to obtain it. Furthermore, there are still quite a few KAMs and PK232s around; the incremental cost to their owners of running Pactor 1 would be very low -- and yet this mode is not frequently heard. Metcalfe's Law states that the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of users of the system. I suspect that it also applies to digital modes. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ok I'll jump in on this one just once. > > I feel if such ARQ modes as Amtor or Pactor 1, 2 or 3 > could be done via sound card. Most modes would be dead > by noon tomorrow. > > But since they can't no need to go on. > > Some will never know what they are missing. > > > John, W0JAB > Louisiana, Missouri > EM48LK >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?
We have several modes that fall in to that category. Or, in one case, did have with SCAMP which has not been made available after it was developed. While it did not have the fall back position of the Pactor modes, the developer chose not to add more robust modes. The speed was quite good, faster than Pactor 2 under good conditions (about 1,000 wpm) but with a wider footprint, like P3. Very recently, we have several of the basic sound card modes, that are converted to ARQ under the NBEM System. It is not very sophisticated, but will work under moderate conditions. Some have been disappointed in the performance, but I have been able to use PSK250 under 80 meter NVIS with good copy under typical daytime conditions without lightning static. We can expect other bolt-on modes will be added to NBEMS, which is one of its major strengths. The most effective sound card mode that I have thus far found is the ALE modified 8FSK waveform called FAE400 and for higher speed, FAE2000 (to give it a name). The problem is that few hams are interested in using these modes, whether sound card or proprietary hardware/firmware. The speed is many times faster than you can type. I have had spontaneous contacts with NBEMS and FAE400, but generally have found it necessary to use skeds. The main thing that is difficult to do with computer switching time, is to have a synchronous mode such as Pactor decoding in close to real time. SCAMP proved, once and for all, that pipelined ARQ was completely feasible. And this was over three years ago and the state of the art has moved forward since then. So, for sound card modes it appears that you use an asynchronous mode such as NBEMS, packet, or FAE, or you use a synchronous mode, but requiring the ARQ decoding to be a separate thread and processed during the time you are receiving the next packet. What none of these modes do as yet, is scale up and down with conditions, except for NBEMS which can be manually adjusted. While Amtor could not do this and was not all that good of a mode (poor weak signal performance and no ASCII character set, false characters getting through on weaker signals, and twice per second switching speed with the sending of only three characters per burst), Pactor is the most finessed mode of this type if cost is not a consideration. Also, some of the single tone STANAG/MIL-STD/FED-STD modems can operate in a similar fashion although the top speeds are much higher, but you do need good conditions and here in the U.S. can not be operated in the text data portions of the bands. 73, Rick, KV9U John Becker, WØJAB wrote: > Ok I'll jump in on this one just once. > > I feel if such ARQ modes as Amtor or Pactor 1, 2 or 3 > could be done via sound card. Most modes would be dead > by noon tomorrow. > > But since they can't no need to go on. > > Some will never know what they are missing. >
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?
Hear hear . ~ Patrick VK2PN QF56pe on the east Australian coast From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of "John Becker, WØJAB" Sent: Thursday, 24 April 2008 11:37 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ? Ok I'll jump in on this one just once. I feel if such ARQ modes as Amtor or Pactor 1, 2 or 3 could be done via sound card. Most modes would be dead by noon tomorrow. But since they can't no need to go on. Some will never know what they are missing. John, W0JAB Louisiana, Missouri EM48LK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?
Ok I'll jump in on this one just once. I feel if such ARQ modes as Amtor or Pactor 1, 2 or 3 could be done via sound card. Most modes would be dead by noon tomorrow. But since they can't no need to go on. Some will never know what they are missing. John, W0JAB Louisiana, Missouri EM48LK
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?
The decoding delay is minimal and probably not even noticeable, even in chat mode. The delay in a chat is waiting for a buffer to fill so the FEC packet can be constructed. In non-FEC mode characters are sent as typed. So for a 20 character message it requires the time for 20 keystrokes, calculation of the FEC and then the transmission of the 20 characters plus FEC characters. It might be interesting to try the following: 1. Send a start of message character, 2. Send each character as it is typed, and buffer each character. 3. Calculate the FEC on the buffer and transmit the FEC characters. 4. Send an end of message character. 5. The receiver displays each character as received. 6. After the FEC is received and decoded the receiver displays any corrected characters in the appropriate place on the display. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vojtech Bubnik Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 8:21 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ? BTW, PSK63F has error correction, but I never heard it on air. FEC will always introduce decoding delay. 73, Vojtech OK1IAK
[digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?
> >>>A new protocol with all of PSK31's current virtues augmented by > error correction and the ability to convey modest-sized files in real- > time would initiate a similar transition, I suspect. BTW, PSK63F has error correction, but I never heard it on air. FEC will always introduce decoding delay. 73, Vojtech OK1IAK
[digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?
>>>AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "jhaynesatalumni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't know if that would lead to a displacement of PSK31 so much as it would an accomodation of other activities that PSK31 doesn't do well. I mean, the lack of error detection/correction and inability to convey files doesn't seem to bother the kind of people who make up the majority of PSK31 users now. >>>The absence of panoramic reception and AFC didn't bother the ops who were running RTTY before PSK31 became available either. But when PSK31 did become available, it provided these new features with no loss of previous (RTTY) functionality -- so ops began using it. >>>A new protocol with all of PSK31's current virtues augmented by error correction and the ability to convey modest-sized files in real- time would initiate a similar transition, I suspect. Given the broad availablility of inexpensive digital point-and-shoot cameras emitting already-compressed jpg files, exchanging pictures of one's shack and/or antennas would be pretty popular -- and a lot more interesting than most of today's brag tapes. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave AA6YQ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In seeking to displace PSK31 with a better alternative, a good place to > start is to consider PSK31's weaknesses: > > A. no error detection/correction > > B. simplex > > C. can't convey files (messages, pictures, documents, etc.) > I don't know if that would lead to a displacement of PSK31 so much as it would an accomodation of other activities that PSK31 doesn't do well. I mean, the lack of error detection/correction and inability to convey files doesn't seem to bother the kind of people who make up the majority of PSK31 users now. Nor does simplex. BTW I enjoy MFSK-16 when I can find it on the air, but the ability to send pictures is not a selling point to me. I don't have any pictures I want to send, and I'm almost never interested in the pictures people want to send me.
[digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?
Jeff, Found it. Look here: http://mmhamsoft.amateur-radio.ca/ It was the MMSTV software that auto-decodes the SSTV signal. By auto- decode, I mean it determines the proper protocol for you (Scotty 1, etc.) 73, Paul I've spent hours runnng MultiPSK trying to figure out which variation of SSTV a signal is only to be rewarded with nothing. I've pretty much given up on SSTV for that reason. I keep plugging away at the rest of the digimodes, because I occasionally have success at decoding some exotic signal. And the real reward is finding someone in a QSO that wants to try other modes! > > Jeff -- KE7ACY > CN94
[digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't believe that PSK31, PSK63, or RTTY are the best that can be > done on HF-- but no protocol attractive enough to displace them has > yet been developed. > I think, too, that each has its place. RTTY was once our only keyboard mode. Now it is still in use mostly for DX and contests, where the very rapid turnaround is important and you don't care if you get a lot of errors so long as what you get looks like what you want to get. PSK-31 is the "new RTTY" as a general conversational mode. PSK-63 for those who can type faster, but that doesn't seem to be very many of us. Olivia is really impressive under poor conditions. If only it were not so slow - I forget how slow it is and type up a big buffer full and then get bored waiting for it to go out. Feld-Hell is fun because it is quaint. I'm still waiting to make a contact using flarq or ALE-400.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?
WSPR is a propogation testing mode. It stands for Weak Signal Propogation Reporting and is based on MEPT_JT (Manned Experimental Propogation Testing by Joe Taylor). WSPR.exe is the program used and the object is to use the lowest power setting you can get away with and to transmit a 2 minute signal on the even minutes with 2 minute reception periods scattered in there to listen for other signals. The signal consists of your callsign, grid square, power level and a couple of other pieces of data. The mode is designed to work well into the noise floor and can reach great distances. I've picked up signals over 9000 miles away and have had my 5 watt signal heard over 9000 miles on 30m. There's been some experimentation in other bands from 2m down to at least 80m with varying success. It's fun, try it out. Jeff -- KE7ACY CN94 - Original Message - From: kc4cop996 I have what I think is a simple request. Would someone please tell me what WSPR is? I don't know if I have any interest in WSPR or not - since I have no idea what it is or what software is used for it. It looks like it might be a low power digital mode. Dick Zseltvay, KC4COP --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well, I see it is not Olivia's fault, but people's conservadurism not > trying the newer modes. As it has been said before, most people on PSK31 > uses ONLY PSK31, and very few of the most restless attempts other modes. > > I believe that there is another ongoing revolution on beaconing with WSPR. > > As I said in another posting, it is the power of deep space > communications, based on heavy coding, coming down to earth. > > Peter Martinez did the first step when devising varicode, Pawel carried > it further ahead with Olivia using Walsh codes, and now Joe carries it > farther ahead to a point that had never been reached so far in ham > communications. > > 73, > > Jose, CO2JA > > --- > > Andrew O'Brien wrote: > > > Jose, after I wrote the first Chip 64 help file and published it, > > there was a few weeks of activity but it has been dead for the past > > couple of years. Olivia is perhaps my favourite but hard to find > > anyone, and when you do it is the guy you talked to the last time you > > heard a Olivia signal. > > > > Andy. > > > > > > r > >> I have never found Domino any better than Olivia. > >> > >> So, I would keep Olivia, MFSK16 and Hell. > >> > >> BTW, did Chip 64 ever get any use ? > >> > >> 73, > >> > >> Jose, CO2JA > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > MSc. Ing. Jose Angel Amador Fundora > Profesor Auxiliar > Departamento de Telecomunicaciones > Facultad de Ingenieria Electrica, CUJAE > Calle 114 #11901 e/ 119 y 127 > Marianao 19390, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba > Tel: (53 7) 266-3445 > Email: amador at electrica.cujae.edu.cu >
[digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?
I have what I think is a simple request. Would someone please tell me what WSPR is? I don't know if I have any interest in WSPR or not - since I have no idea what it is or what software is used for it. It looks like it might be a low power digital mode. Dick Zseltvay, KC4COP --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well, I see it is not Olivia's fault, but people's conservadurism not > trying the newer modes. As it has been said before, most people on PSK31 > uses ONLY PSK31, and very few of the most restless attempts other modes. > > I believe that there is another ongoing revolution on beaconing with WSPR. > > As I said in another posting, it is the power of deep space > communications, based on heavy coding, coming down to earth. > > Peter Martinez did the first step when devising varicode, Pawel carried > it further ahead with Olivia using Walsh codes, and now Joe carries it > farther ahead to a point that had never been reached so far in ham > communications. > > 73, > > Jose, CO2JA > > --- > > Andrew O'Brien wrote: > > > Jose, after I wrote the first Chip 64 help file and published it, > > there was a few weeks of activity but it has been dead for the past > > couple of years. Olivia is perhaps my favourite but hard to find > > anyone, and when you do it is the guy you talked to the last time you > > heard a Olivia signal. > > > > Andy. > > > > > > r > >> I have never found Domino any better than Olivia. > >> > >> So, I would keep Olivia, MFSK16 and Hell. > >> > >> BTW, did Chip 64 ever get any use ? > >> > >> 73, > >> > >> Jose, CO2JA > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > MSc. Ing. Jose Angel Amador Fundora > Profesor Auxiliar > Departamento de Telecomunicaciones > Facultad de Ingenieria Electrica, CUJAE > Calle 114 #11901 e/ 119 y 127 > Marianao 19390, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba > Tel: (53 7) 266-3445 > Email: amador at electrica.cujae.edu.cu >
[digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?
>>>AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >snip< 2. Log keeping, I don't want to have 10 different log files, I want to have one. I use DXKeeper and WinWarbler and MultiPSK will interface to it, but I also run HRD/DM780, NBEMS, MixW, and several others that don't. >>>DM780 and MixW both interface with DXLab; in particular, both can log directly to DXKeeper. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?
I don't believe that PSK31, PSK63, or RTTY are the best that can be done on HF-- but no protocol attractive enough to displace them has yet been developed. This remains an open challenge, not a closed book. Skip KH6TY's latest work seems promising... 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Maybe it is because I am getting irritated because of the pinched > nerve in my neck, I'm thinking maybe I have just had enough of the > plethora of digital modes. Yes, it is K3UK saying that...the bloke > that is always trying varying modes. > > I tried calling CQ numerous times in the TARA Skirming using various > "exotic" modes, but ZERO respondents. No one answered Olivia CQ's, no > one answered DominoEX CQ's, no Hell, and even no MFSK16 ! > > The only three modes that produced a response were PSK31, PSK63 and RTTY. > > > Several months ago, I saw Dave AA6YQ make some comment about Winwabler > not adding additional modes because (paraphrasing) RTTY and PSK31/63 > are effective and the others too under utilized to warrant inclusion. > While I have really enjoyed many experimental modes and had lots of > fun testing, I think if I added up the time I have spent endlessly > trawling the digital bands without results, I could have built a few > more antennae, or added a few thousand more QSO via other modes. > Heck, my CW could be even more practiced. > > > So, for the next few months I am going to detox, and consolidate > around the following modes. > > PSK31/63 (125/250 on VHF/UHF) > RTTY > MEPT-WSPR (passive operations) > Narrow SSTV/Digital SSTV > HF JT65A > ALE 400 > > > Time to put MFSK16,Hell, standard ALE, Olivia , Contestia, RTTYM, > DominoEX , etc, in to the virtual junk-box. They can join their > counsins from the non-virtual world...Betamax ,8 track tapes, and > cassettes. All good applications, but no one uses 'em anymore. > > > Andy K3UK >
[digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?
Hey Jeff - your neighbor K7NHB here. Don't give up on SSTV. One of the software packages I use - not MixW - automatically determines the correct SSTV mode. Or, you can pick the Scotty mode and be correct 90% of the time. Once it stops snowing in Bend, I'll get real antennas in the air (both HF and VHF) and I'll be more interested in rekindling my software familiarity. I'm sure others will/can post what "auto-detect" SSTV mode software I'm referring to and can post it here. If I get my computer act together and re-discover it, I'll pass it to you via 2M. It is fun to see the images come across and be tickled at some of the more interesting graphics, scratchy though they might be. 73, Paul --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wI've spent hours runnng MultiPSK trying to figure out which variation of SSTV a signal is only to be rewarded with nothing. I've pretty much given up on SSTV for that reason. I keep plugging away at the rest of the digimodes, because I occasionally have success at decoding some exotic signal. And the real reward is finding someone in a QSO that wants to try other modes! > > Jeff -- KE7ACY > CN94 >
[digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?
Andy, Hope you get feeling better soon...hang in there. Also, here is some data that might be of interest to your post: http://www.30meterdigital.org/30msoftware.html http://poll.pollcode.com/81D_result?v What digital modes do you use the most on 30 Meters? 533 total individual votes (1,039 total votes most voted for more than one) PSK31 = 464 votes or 45% RTTY = 124 votes or 12% CW = 98 votes or 9% PSK63 =79 votes or 8% MFSK = 68 votes or 6% Olivia = 61 votes or 6% HELL = 51 votes or 5% WSJT JT65A = 25 votes or 3% Throb = 18 votes or 2% Other = 16 votes or 2% (WSPR/MEPT, SSTV MP73N, etc) Domino = 10 votes or 1% ALE400 = 6 votes or 1% Chip64 = 3 votes or 0% de kb9umt Don --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Maybe it is because I am getting irritated because of the pinched > nerve in my neck, I'm thinking maybe I have just had enough of the > plethora of digital modes. Yes, it is K3UK saying that...the bloke > that is always trying varying modes. > > I tried calling CQ numerous times in the TARA Skirming using various > "exotic" modes, but ZERO respondents. No one answered Olivia CQ's, no > one answered DominoEX CQ's, no Hell, and even no MFSK16 ! > > The only three modes that produced a response were PSK31, PSK63 and RTTY. > > > Several months ago, I saw Dave AA6YQ make some comment about Winwabler > not adding additional modes because (paraphrasing) RTTY and PSK31/63 > are effective and the others too under utilized to warrant inclusion. > While I have really enjoyed many experimental modes and had lots of > fun testing, I think if I added up the time I have spent endlessly > trawling the digital bands without results, I could have built a few > more antennae, or added a few thousand more QSO via other modes. > Heck, my CW could be even more practiced. > > > So, for the next few months I am going to detox, and consolidate > around the following modes. > > PSK31/63 (125/250 on VHF/UHF) > RTTY > MEPT-WSPR (passive operations) > Narrow SSTV/Digital SSTV > HF JT65A > ALE 400 > > > Time to put MFSK16,Hell, standard ALE, Olivia , Contestia, RTTYM, > DominoEX , etc, in to the virtual junk-box. They can join their > counsins from the non-virtual world...Betamax ,8 track tapes, and > cassettes. All good applications, but no one uses 'em anymore. > > > Andy K3UK >
[digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?
During the TARA Skirmish I made allot of contacts on PSK31/63/125 and RTTY only, on 40 and 20 meters. Also during the weekend period I had quite a few QSO's on Hell during the Feld Hell Club contest. Last weekend I made allot of contacts on PSK31/63/125 during the 070 Flavors contest. During the past seven days I made quite a few MFSK16 and OLIVIA 500/16 contacts on 40 and 20 meters by answering CQ's. However outside of PSK31, OLIVIA and RTTY there does seem to be fewer hams using the other modes during the weekdays. I've been operating the digital modes since 2003 and I've never worked anyone on RTTYM, Contestia or MT63 and only a few contacts on Throb. 73 & God Bless, Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF Lakeland, FL, USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] KN4LF Amateur & SWL Radio Autobiography: http://www.kn4lf.com
[digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?
I would keep Hell, yes it is not as popular as PSK or RTTY, but there are quiet a few operators on Hell, and there are active nets/contest for Hell. Take a look at the group. Sorry to hear about the pinched nerve, been there and it's not fun. Myself I am recovering from minor knee surgery so not in the best mood either. Hope you get well soon Andy. 73 Kurt K8YZK Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
