Re: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK & spectrum efficiency

[k3mm]

I think the key to making it really fly would be to hold some short sprint 
contests using PSK63 only.  That way you could get a lot of guys to try it 
without a big commitment of time and effort.  As it gains acceptance thru that 
and word of mouth, it could be added as an optional mode in more mainstream 
contests.

Hold some sprints and talk it up on the email reflectors and it stands a 
chance...

Ty K3MM


Jul 20, 2010 07:10:30 PM, digitalradio@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> 
> 



PSK63 was developed as an intended RTTY contesting mode replacement, 
>not for conversation. PSK31 is too slow for contesting and has a preamble and 
>a 
>postamble that slows turnovers down, so the idea was that 100 wpm PSK63 would, 
>overall, including faster turnovers than PSK31, be as fast as RTTY for contest 
>exchanges, and contesters would benefit from less power needed, panoramic 
>reception, 
>less crowding, and faster synchronization. In the contesting world, a rapid 
>exchange 
>and turnover is more important than a faster typing speed. Peter Martinez 
>designed PSK31 
>for ragchewing and so selected 50 wpm as fast enough for conversation for most 
>typists.
> 
> Even though Don, AA5AU, a big-time winner of RTTY contests, said he was just 
>"blown away" about the possibility of PSK63 for contesting when I showed it to 
>him, I was unable to get it implemented into WriteLog, as the author took a 
>"chicken 
>and egg" approach in which he said he would not add PSK63 to WriteLog until it 
>became popular for contesting! Since WriteLog is so popular with contest 
>winners, 
>and did not support PSK63, the mode never took off, except in Europe.
> 
> What might help would be for someone to convince the contest managers to do 
>something like adding a multiplier for PSK63 contacts, or perhaps some other 
>acceptable 
>incentive, to make it worthwhile to use PSK63 for contests.
> 
> Everybody would win, because so many PSK63 signals can fit into the space 
>of one RTTY signal, and with panoramic displays, you get a list of callsigns 
>to 
>select from all presented to you, and can even highlight zones or callsign 
>areas 
>you need for multipliers, etc..
> 
> 73, Skip KH6TY
> 
> On 7/20/2010 7:03 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote: 
> 

> 
> - Original Message 
> From: g4ilo 
> To: mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com"; target="_blank" class=" 
>parsedEmail">digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 4:29:15 AM
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK & spectrum efficiency
> 
> Just because a mode is better doesn't mean that people will want to use it, 
>
> though, and I guess both RTTY and PSK31 are so established now that you'll 
>never 
> persuade people to give them up.
> 
> Julian, G4ILO
> 
> 
> 
> While rtty can be replaced by other modes, they will not run on the 50 plus 
>old 
> mechanical printers and the demodulators that go with them. Just as some 
>like 
> to run AM on the ham bands. Not that good of a use of bandwidth, but just 
>
> something to play with that many enjoy. I doubt that many 
>hams that run the 
> digital modes can really type very fast and depend on the micros in the 
>
> programs. For the ones doing it in real time, psk31 probably has enough 
>speed.
> 
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK & spectrum efficiency

[Ralph Mowery]

From: J. Moen 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 8:33:06 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK & spectrum efficiency




I completely understand the lure of the old mechanical teleprinters.  But I 
have 
to say I was surprised at my reaction to the addition of RTTY to the firmware 
in 
my NUE-PSK modem.  

 
I typically use the NUE-PSK battery powered plugged into my 817 while doing QRP 
in the field.  I don't need to lug along a laptop to do PSK31.  Apparently it 
was easy for them to add RTTY support, and by golly, I found myself doing the 
occasionally RTTY QSO using this little device.  And it was fun.
 
I would not have guessed a modern little device like the NUE-PSK would ever 
support RTTY, and I would not have guessed I'd get a kick out of it.  I mean, I 
still prefer other digital modes, but RTTY once in a while can be fun too, I've 
discovered.
 
  Jim - K6JM
 
 
>I have an old mechanical printer that dates back to around  1945.  Still works 
>fine.  I let it run just to watch it work.  Sometimes it is interisting to 
>compair the print of the old 1970 something homebuilt modem and mechanical 
>printer with the modern sound card programs.
>The NUE-PSK should not be hard to impliment rtty on.  I wrote a program to run 
>on an 8080 processor board that only had 1 K of ram and 2 K of rom in it about 
>30 years ago.  I did have an external modem to convert the tones to pulses.  
>Same one that worked the mechanical printer.  
>
>While the NUE-PSK looks interisting, I have a small netbook computer that will 
>run all the sound card programs.  If you have to have a keyboard, the netbook 
>is 
>not much larger with its 10 inch screen. .  A small interface box handles the 
>audio interface.


  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK & spectrum efficiency

[J. Moen]

I completely understand the lure of the old mechanical teleprinters.  But I 
have to say I was surprised at my reaction to the addition of RTTY to the 
firmware in my NUE-PSK modem.  

I typically use the NUE-PSK battery powered plugged into my 817 while doing QRP 
in the field.  I don't need to lug along a laptop to do PSK31.  Apparently it 
was easy for them to add RTTY support, and by golly, I found myself doing the 
occasionally RTTY QSO using this little device.  And it was fun.

I would not have guessed a modern little device like the NUE-PSK would ever 
support RTTY, and I would not have guessed I'd get a kick out of it.  I mean, I 
still prefer other digital modes, but RTTY once in a while can be fun too, I've 
discovered.

  Jim - K6JM

  - Original Message - 
  From: Ralph Mowery 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 4:03 PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK & spectrum efficiency

  - Original Message 
  From: g4ilo 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 4:29:15 AM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK & spectrum efficiency

  Just because a mode is better doesn't mean that people will want to use it, 
  though, and I guess both RTTY and PSK31 are so established now that you'll 
never 
  persuade people to give them up.

  Julian, G4ILO

  

  While rtty can be replaced by other modes, they will not run on the 50 plus 
old 
  mechanical printers and the demodulators that go with them.  Just as some 
like 
  to run AM on the ham bands.  Not that good of a use of bandwidth, but just 
  something to play with that many enjoy.I doubt that many hams that run 
the 
  digital modes can really type very fast and depend on the micros in the 
  programs.  For the ones doing it in real time, psk31 probably has enough 
speed.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK & spectrum efficiency

[KH6TY]

PSK63 was developed as an intended RTTY contesting mode replacement, not 
for conversation. PSK31 is too slow for contesting and has a preamble 
and a postamble that slows turnovers down, so the idea was that 100 wpm 
PSK63 would, overall, including faster turnovers than PSK31, be as fast 
as RTTY for contest exchanges, and contesters would benefit from less 
power needed, panoramic reception, less crowding, and faster 
synchronization. In the contesting world, a rapid exchange and turnover 
is more important than a faster typing speed. Peter Martinez designed 
PSK31 for ragchewing and so selected 50 wpm as fast enough for 
conversation for most typists.


Even though Don, AA5AU, a big-time winner of RTTY contests, said he was 
just "blown away" about the possibility of PSK63 for contesting when I 
showed it to him, I was unable to get it implemented into WriteLog, as 
the author took a "chicken and egg" approach in which he said he would 
not add PSK63 to WriteLog until it became popular for contesting! Since 
WriteLog is so popular with contest winners, and did not support PSK63, 
the mode never took off, except in Europe.


What might help would be for someone to convince the contest managers to 
do something like adding a multiplier for PSK63 contacts, or perhaps 
some other acceptable incentive, to make it worthwhile to use PSK63 for 
contests.


Everybody would win, because so many PSK63 signals can fit into the 
space of one RTTY signal, and with panoramic displays, you get a list of 
callsigns to select from all presented to you, and can even highlight 
zones or callsign areas you need for multipliers, etc..


73, Skip KH6TY

On 7/20/2010 7:03 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:




- Original Message 
From: g4ilo mailto:julian%40g4ilo.com>>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 4:29:15 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK & spectrum efficiency

Just because a mode is better doesn't mean that people will want to 
use it,
though, and I guess both RTTY and PSK31 are so established now that 
you'll never

persuade people to give them up.

Julian, G4ILO



While rtty can be replaced by other modes, they will not run on the 50 
plus old
mechanical printers and the demodulators that go with them.  Just as 
some like
to run AM on the ham bands.  Not that good of a use of bandwidth, but 
just
something to play with that many enjoy.I doubt that many hams that 
run the

digital modes can really type very fast and depend on the micros in the
programs.  For the ones doing it in real time, psk31 probably has 
enough speed.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK & spectrum efficiency

[Ralph Mowery]

- Original Message 
From: g4ilo 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 4:29:15 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK & spectrum efficiency



Just because a mode is better doesn't mean that people will want to use it, 
though, and I guess both RTTY and PSK31 are so established now that you'll 
never 
persuade people to give them up.

Julian, G4ILO





While rtty can be replaced by other modes, they will not run on the 50 plus old 
mechanical printers and the demodulators that go with them.  Just as some like 
to run AM on the ham bands.  Not that good of a use of bandwidth, but just 
something to play with that many enjoy.    I doubt that many hams that run the 
digital modes can really type very fast and depend on the micros in the 
programs.  For the ones doing it in real time, psk31 probably has enough speed.



  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK & spectrum efficiency

[k3mm]

The IMD shouldnt be a significant problem unless something is overdriven.  
However, you see that with PSK31 and to a lesser extent RTTY fairly often on 
the bands, although most of what i see is 60 cycle hum and audio harmonics 
related to that, rather than just pure overdrive.  AFSK, etc., is the way to go 
if you can keep it clean (vs FSK).

PSK31 is too slow for contesting, so the first shift required is to PSK63.

73, Ty K3MM


Jul 20, 2010 04:00:06 AM, digitalradio@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> 
> 



> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, k...@... wrote:
> >
> > Quite frankly, RTTY could easily be replaced with PSK63 as the prime 
> > digital 
>contest mode. However, many PSK operators are so clueless and often downright 
>rude 
>when it comes to contests that its an extremely uphill battle. We could fit a 
>lot 
>more PSK63 signals on the band than RTTY...
> > 
> > It would be interesting to see what happened if a semi-major RTTY contest 
>was moved to PSK63 only.
> > 
> 
> Agreed, though the IMD might be a problem, especially as many RTTY contesters 
>use class C amps. Of course, you could also argue that they wouldn't need to 
>use 
>as much power...
> 
> As a not completely unrelated aside, a few of us have been helping to test 
>G4HYG's APRS Messenger software which at the moment is an experiment to find 
>an 
>alternative publicly documented mode to FSK300 packet that gives better 
>performance 
>on the HF bands. We had been using PSK63 but very recently have been trying 
>the 
>GMSK modes (63, 125 and 250) which are implemented in the MMVARI free software.
> 
> I don't know (and don't at the moment have time to find out) what exactly the 
>technical differences are between PSK and GMSK but the performance seems to be 
>even 
>better, and apparently it doesn't have the amplitude variations that cause IMD 
>products 
>when using PSK.
> 
> Just because a mode is better doesn't mean that people will want to use it, 
>though, and I guess both RTTY and PSK31 are so established now that you'll 
>never 
>persuade people to give them up.
> 
> Julian, G4ILO
> 
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK & spectrum efficiency

[KH6TY]

Once the "driver", i.e. transceiver is operated linearly for soundcard 
RTTY, a non-linear class-C amp can follow and the result, and high 
power, is the same as direct FSK, because the drive to the amp is a pure 
RF signal - no competitive loss to the high power contester!


73, Skip KH6TY

On 7/20/2010 4:29 AM, g4ilo wrote:




--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
, k...@... wrote:

>
> Quite frankly, RTTY could easily be replaced with PSK63 as the prime 
digital contest mode. However, many PSK operators are so clueless and 
often downright rude when it comes to contests that its an extremely 
uphill battle. We could fit a lot more PSK63 signals on the band than 
RTTY...

>
> It would be interesting to see what happened if a semi-major RTTY 
contest was moved to PSK63 only.

>

Agreed, though the IMD might be a problem, especially as many RTTY 
contesters use class C amps. Of course, you could also argue that they 
wouldn't need to use as much power...


._,___

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK & spectrum efficiency

[g4ilo]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, k...@... wrote:
>
> Quite frankly, RTTY could easily be replaced with PSK63 as the prime digital 
> contest mode.  However, many PSK operators are so clueless and often 
> downright rude when it comes to contests that its an extremely uphill battle. 
>  We could fit a lot more PSK63 signals on the band than RTTY...
>  
> It would be interesting to see what happened if a semi-major RTTY contest was 
> moved to PSK63 only.
>  


Agreed, though the IMD might be a problem, especially as many RTTY contesters 
use class C amps. Of course, you could also argue that they wouldn't need to 
use as much power...

As a not completely unrelated aside, a few of us have been helping to test 
G4HYG's APRS Messenger software which at the moment is an experiment to find an 
alternative publicly documented mode to FSK300 packet that gives better 
performance on the HF bands. We had been using PSK63 but very recently have 
been trying the GMSK modes (63, 125 and 250) which are implemented in the 
MMVARI free software.

I don't know (and don't at the moment have time to find out) what exactly the 
technical differences are between PSK and GMSK but the performance seems to be 
even better, and apparently it doesn't have the amplitude variations that cause 
IMD products when using PSK.

Just because a mode is better doesn't mean that people will want to use it, 
though, and I guess both RTTY and PSK31 are so established now that you'll 
never persuade people to give them up.

Julian, G4ILO

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia web site

[KH6TY]

Julian,

An Olivia DLL already exists for MixW, but I do not think that it is 
documented sufficiently for others to use.


73 - Skip KH6TY




g4ilo wrote:
 

OK. So could one create a DLL that could be called by Windows programs 
written in VB, VC++, Delphi etc. using MinGW?


Julian, G4ILO

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
, Stelios Bounanos  
wrote:

>
> > On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:09:50 -, "g4ilo"  said:
>
> > I downloaded Pawel's source code for his text mode demo 
application and

> > despite not knowing C++ managed eventually to compile and run it under
> > Linux. However I understand that on Windows it must run under 
CygWin or MinGW
> > which are a kind of Linux emulation. So quite a lot of work would 
need to be
> > done to make it operate in a way that it could be called from 
other "normal"

> > Windows programs.
>
> Cygwin and MinGW are not Linux emulation layers. Cygwin implements a
> *POSIX* compatibility layer on top of the win32 API, which requires
> dynamic linking to the cygwin1.dll library, but there is a compiler
> switch to disable this (-mno-cygwin). MinGW is a port of GCC to win32
> with some headers and import libraries for the win32 API, plus better
> C99 support. Otherwise, it uses the MS runtime and is basically as
> "native" as it gets.
>
>
> --
>
> 73,
> Stelios, M0GLD.
>

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia web site

[g4ilo]

OK. So could one create a DLL that could be called by Windows programs written 
in VB, VC++, Delphi etc. using MinGW?

Julian, G4ILO

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Stelios Bounanos  wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:09:50 -, "g4ilo"  said:
> 
> > I downloaded Pawel's source code for his text mode demo application and
> > despite not knowing C++ managed eventually to compile and run it under
> > Linux. However I understand that on Windows it must run under CygWin or 
> > MinGW
> > which are a kind of Linux emulation. So quite a lot of work would need to be
> > done to make it operate in a way that it could be called from other "normal"
> > Windows programs.
> 
> Cygwin and MinGW are not Linux emulation layers.  Cygwin implements a
> *POSIX* compatibility layer on top of the win32 API, which requires
> dynamic linking to the cygwin1.dll library, but there is a compiler
> switch to disable this (-mno-cygwin).  MinGW is a port of GCC to win32
> with some headers and import libraries for the win32 API, plus better
> C99 support.  Otherwise, it uses the MS runtime and is basically as
> "native" as it gets.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 73,
> Stelios, M0GLD.
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia web site

[Stelios Bounanos]

> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:09:50 -, "g4ilo"  said:

> I downloaded Pawel's source code for his text mode demo application and
> despite not knowing C++ managed eventually to compile and run it under
> Linux. However I understand that on Windows it must run under CygWin or MinGW
> which are a kind of Linux emulation. So quite a lot of work would need to be
> done to make it operate in a way that it could be called from other "normal"
> Windows programs.

Cygwin and MinGW are not Linux emulation layers.  Cygwin implements a
*POSIX* compatibility layer on top of the win32 API, which requires
dynamic linking to the cygwin1.dll library, but there is a compiler
switch to disable this (-mno-cygwin).  MinGW is a port of GCC to win32
with some headers and import libraries for the win32 API, plus better
C99 support.  Otherwise, it uses the MS runtime and is basically as
"native" as it gets.


-- 

73,
Stelios, M0GLD.

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia trivia

[Paul W. Ross]

That is my understanding...

/paul W3FIS

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia web site

[g4ilo]

I downloaded Pawel's source code for his text mode demo application and despite 
not knowing C++ managed eventually to compile and run it under Linux. However I 
understand that on Windows it must run under CygWin or MinGW which are a kind 
of Linux emulation. So quite a lot of work would need to be done to make it 
operate in a way that it could be called from other "normal" Windows programs.

If such a DLL could be made available then I'm sure it would encourage the more 
widespread use of Olivia mode. I know the PSK Core has had that effect for 
PSK31. It is still being used in all kinds of applications, the most recent 
being one to do APRS on HF using PSK63 (APRS Messenger). It is much more robust 
than 300baud packet.

Julian, G4ILO

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien  wrote:
>
> I don't know of one.  Pawel is a member of this group, so perhaps he can
> chime in on this.  To have one avaiable much like the PSK Core that Moe gave
> the ham world, would be very nice.
> Andy K3UK
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia web site

[Tom Azlin N4ZPT]

There are the Olivia, Contestia, and RTTYM plug ins for MixW. Is the
interface description enough to use the plugins with a wrapper?

73, Tom n4zpt

On 3/5/2010 7:34 AM, Andy obrien wrote:
> I don't know of one.  Pawel is a member of this group, so perhaps he can
> chime in on this.  To have one avaiable much like the PSK Core that Moe gave
> the ham world, would be very nice.
> Andy K3UK
> 
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 4:27 AM, g4ilo  wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> Andy. Do you or anyone know if there is an Olivia DLL that can be used to
>> add Olivia support to a program, in a similar way to the PSK Core DLL made
>> by AE4JY? I know there is one that is used by MixW but I am not sure if it
>> is only for use with that package as I can't find any documentation on how
>> to use it from another program.
>>
>> Julian, G4ILO
>>
>>
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia web site

[Andy obrien]

I don't know of one.  Pawel is a member of this group, so perhaps he can
chime in on this.  To have one avaiable much like the PSK Core that Moe gave
the ham world, would be very nice.
Andy K3UK

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 4:27 AM, g4ilo  wrote:

>
>
> Andy. Do you or anyone know if there is an Olivia DLL that can be used to
> add Olivia support to a program, in a similar way to the PSK Core DLL made
> by AE4JY? I know there is one that is used by MixW but I am not sure if it
> is only for use with that package as I can't find any documentation on how
> to use it from another program.
>
> Julian, G4ILO
>
>

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia web site

[g4ilo]

Andy. Do you or anyone know if there is an Olivia DLL that can be used to add 
Olivia support to a program, in a similar way to the PSK Core DLL made by 
AE4JY? I know there is one that is used by MixW but I am not sure if it is only 
for use with that package as I can't find any documentation on how to use it 
from another program.

Julian, G4ILO

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien  wrote:
>
> Members of this group that are new to digital mdoes may find this web
> site useful  http://www.oliviamode.com/
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia

[Tony]

Siegfried 

> We would need a wrapper around Olivia or PSK that would send
> signal-quality responses so the sender could adjust its speed.

I would imagine the turnover time would play a part in how well that would 
work. 

Tony -K2MO

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia

[Siegfried Jackstien]

i know  and after that we are in the area of programming the modes as arq 
modes  :-)
  - Original Message - 
  From: jhaynesatalumni 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 12:21 AM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia





  --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Siegfried Jackstien" 
 wrote:
  >
  > i like the ida of automatic changing of the modes . would act as pactor 
123 .

  But the reason Pactor can do that is that the sending station is
  constantly getting acknowledgment packets that tell it how the
  last sent packet got through, or did not. We would need a wrapper
  around Olivia or PSK that would send signal-quality responses so
  the sender could adjust its speed.



  

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia

[jhaynesatalumni]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Siegfried Jackstien" 
 wrote:
>
> i like the ida of automatic changing of the modes . would act as pactor 
> 123 .

But the reason Pactor can do that is that the sending station is
constantly getting acknowledgment packets that tell it how the
last sent packet got through, or did not.  We would need a wrapper
around Olivia or PSK that would send signal-quality responses so
the sender could adjust its speed.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia

[Rick W]

Jim,

I agree with you completely about Clover II. Some years back, when I 
would call CQ, I would sometimes get a connection with Ray Petit, W7GHM, 
(the inventor of CCW, Clover and Clover II), but with our distance and 
dipole antennas, could rarely do much more than trade the path 
information, HI.

Clover II just did not have a robust enough mode, which was somewhat 
surprising since the base modulation was 4 PSK31 tones. At the time the 
Winlink system used both Clover II and Pactor (some Amtor until that was 
phased out), but when they switched over to the Winlink 2000 internet 
based e-mail system, they dropped Clover II support so that really 
decreased use of the mode.

WINMOR is an openly published protocol (perhaps not quite finalized yet) 
that anyone will be able to develop if they have the ability and 
interest to do so. This means it could be used in existing programs or 
even in a new program that would insure ARQ and adaptability for peer to 
peer communication. 

This is vital for those of us who have a serious interest in public 
service/emergency communications. We primarily need the ability to 
connect to other stations on a peer to peer basis, but having e-mail 
access to the internet can also be useful, assuming the internet is 
working where you need to move traffic.

Based on the protocols for WINMOR, I wonder if it will sometimes be more 
robust than Pactor modes of which the most robust, even with P3 is 2 
PSK100 tones separated by about 700 Hz. I have never seen any published 
information on the tolerance for ISI and Doppler and I suspect it may 
not be all that much based upon Tony's results with various modes.

73,

Rick, KV9U

jhaynesatalumni wrote:
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Simon \(HB9DRV\)"  
> wrote:
>   
>> Would not WINMOR be an option here?
>>
>> 
> Well, except that WINMOR seems to be single-mindedly a message
> passing mode.  I wish there was some layering so that the modulation
> means and the error correcting means and the message passing were
> separable.  Of course adapting to varying conditions means some
> communication down through the layers, changing the modulation
> scheme when error control indicates that is needed.
>
> CLOVER had that kind of operation - trouble is that it (amateur
> version) seems to lack the ability to go downhill when conditions
> worsen - it's aggressive enough about going uphill when conditions
> permit.  Times I have used it, it would invariably get stuck
> trying to send long blocks that never made it through, when shorter
> blocks probably would have been successful.
>
> Jim W6JVE
>
>   

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia

[jhaynesatalumni]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Simon \(HB9DRV\)"  wrote:
>
> Would not WINMOR be an option here?
> 
Well, except that WINMOR seems to be single-mindedly a message
passing mode.  I wish there was some layering so that the modulation
means and the error correcting means and the message passing were
separable.  Of course adapting to varying conditions means some
communication down through the layers, changing the modulation
scheme when error control indicates that is needed.

CLOVER had that kind of operation - trouble is that it (amateur
version) seems to lack the ability to go downhill when conditions
worsen - it's aggressive enough about going uphill when conditions
permit.  Times I have used it, it would invariably get stuck
trying to send long blocks that never made it through, when shorter
blocks probably would have been successful.

Jim W6JVE

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia Activity Contest Suggestions

[dl8le]

Proposed bands:

80, 40, 20, 15 and 10

Band segments: above the present PSK segments

Proposed time: 1200 - 2400 UTC

Proposed modes: 500/16 and  250/8 (this would allow the use of DM780 as well as 
Multipsk, FLDigi), no 1000/x

proposed day: Saturday

Proposed date: no conflict with TARA, EPC or any RTTY contest (but not too late 
to use the good spring conditions)

Proposed data exchange: 599+number (not very innovative but simple)


73

Juergen, DL8LE



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien"  wrote:
>
> I have received a suggestion that this group hold another Olivia mode 
> contest/activity.  I am interested in  receiving further suggestions for this 
> .  Since past contests that I have organized have taken up a lot of time  and 
> have been subjected to glitches with emailed cabrillo files, I will make any 
> new contests use simple on-line submission forms, similar to those used by 
> TARA.  
> 
> Anyone have suggested format and time period that would facilitate good 
> involvement from Europe, NA, SA, and the rest of the planet ?   Single band ? 
>  just 2 bands ? 
> 
> Andy K3UK
>

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia 8 x 250 / psk31 / MFSK 8 503 CENTER BEACON - RUNNING NOW - 1615 HRS

[Graham]

Steinar,

I dont see the capture ? may be I have the group settings wrong ? 
ezey , send it to  g0...@hotmail.com 

thanks

Graham .. 


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland  
wrote:
>
> Hi Graham
> 
> Here is a screen capture from Norway .
> 
> 73 de LA5VNA Steinar
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed.

[Cortland Richmond]

My unscientific tests so far with different packages is that MixW seems to 
decode Olivia the best for me, but the lag is longest.  I am using MULTIPSK, 
MixW and FLDIGI at present. 

Other factors enter into things, coexistence with Windows and other software 
being chief for me. Today I was receiving on two rigs at once, on different 
bands, the main one transceiving with MULTIPSK and the secondary monitoring 
another net with FLDIGI. However, I could not transmit on FLDIGI at the same 
time I was receiving on MULTIPSK.   Also, MixW seems to have problems when 
anything else happens   -- an AV update, say -- as XP is set up here. 


Cortland
KA5S


- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Lindecker 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 11/23/2008 4:15:19 PM 
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed.


Hello Andy,

The Multipsk code is not better than the Pawel's design. If I had to rewrite 
the code, I would prefer to use the Pawel's design because it is simpler. 
Simply when I wrote it, I was used to do this way (as with MFSK16, PSK31...) 
and moreover, I had doubts about the precision of a double-estimation by 
symbol. 10 estimations per symbol seemed to me much better, but of course, it 
would have be necessary to load much the CPU, so I forgot it.
But I was wrong, because under a good S/N, this precision (double-estimation by 
symbol) is not necessary and under a bad S/N, it all cases this precision is 
homogeneous with the precision of symbol estimation. 

Note: it is reminded that, under noise, the quick degradation of decoding is 
due to :
* the loss of symbol synchronization,
* the imprecision of the symbol estimation.
This can be seen in an "eye" diagram.

73
Patrick

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed.

[Vojtech Bubnik]

I still believe the decoder may be improved in two ways:

1) Better frequency and time resolution of the decoder. In worst case
Pawel's decoder will be 1/4 of frequency and time spacing off. While
his code is efficient for initial locking, it may lock more precise
after initial sync. I believe this is the explanation why Patrick's
decoder is slightly better.

2) Decoding lag. After decoder is locked, there is no need to look up
in time 1/2 of symbol spacing for better lock.

73, Vojtech OK1IAK


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Lindecker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Hello Andy,
> 
> The Multipsk code is not better than the Pawel's design. If I had to
rewrite the code, I would prefer to use the Pawel's design because it
is simpler. 
> Simply when I wrote it, I was used to do this way (as with MFSK16,
PSK31...) and moreover, I had doubts about the precision of a
double-estimation by symbol. 10 estimations per symbol seemed to me
much better, but of course, it would have be necessary to load much
the CPU, so I forgot it.
> But I was wrong, because under a good S/N, this precision
(double-estimation by symbol) is not necessary and under a bad S/N, it
all cases this precision is homogeneous with the precision of symbol
estimation. 
> 
> Note: it is reminded that, under noise, the quick degradation of
decoding is due to :
> * the loss of symbol synchronization,
> * the imprecision of the symbol estimation.
> This can be seen in an "eye" diagram.
> 
> 73
> Patrick
> 
>   - Original Message - 
>   From: Andrew O'Brien 
>   To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 6:08 PM
>   Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia mode comparisons, testers
needed.
> 
> 
>   So does this mean that Patrick has IMPROVED on Pawel's design and
the "true" implementation within DM780 is not as effective, or is
DM780 slower but better at decoding ?
> 
>   Andy
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Patrick Lindecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hello Votjech,
> 
> >I believe the difference between Patrick's MultiPSK and Pawel's
> >original Olivia code is in the way how the sync time is
adjusted after
> >the initial sync is reached. Partick's code locks in time and only
> Yes it is as you described (you are perspicacious!). The symbol
synchronization is done as in MFSK16, or other mode with a
non-linearity and a PLL to follow slight variations.
> 
> However, I use the complete Pawel strategy for RS ID.
> 
> 
> > synchronization and for decoding very weak signal, additionaly
> > introduced 1 second lag in case of Olivia1000/32 is annoying. 
> 
> I don't think there is some issue for weak signal.
> I tried here comparing Mixw, Multipsk and OliviaAid with a very
noisy transmission: the decodings are more or less equivalent.
> 
> The results are the following (with a signal at -13 dB of S/N
Gaussian which is the limit for Olivia 32-1000 decoding): 
> * OliviaAid: 120 characters decoded, 
> * Mixw: 164 characters decoded, 
> * Multipsk: 208 characters decoded. 
> 
> However, I tested on Gaussian noise, when real conditions could
be very different from a Gaussian noise (QSB was not simulated for
example) and so the results could be different... 
> 
> 73
> 
> Patrick
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Vojtech Bubnik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 4:14 PM
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed.
> 
> 
> > Hi Andy.
> > 
> > Let's say one works with Olivia 1000/32. Olivia sends/receives
7bit
> > ASCII letters. Each 7 bit letter is coded by Walch-Hadamard
> > transformation into 2^(7-1)=64 bits. One of 32 tones
modulation codes
> > 32=2^5 combinations, which equals to 5 binary bits. Olivia is
> > spreading 5 7bit letters over 64 MFSK32 tones. It takes
64/31.25=2.048
> > seconds to transmit one block of 5 letters. I hope this
explains why
> > the received letters appear in groups of five and why there is a
> > considerable lag, which cannot be lower than 2 seconds for any
decoder.
> > 
> > Olivia receiver searches for the Walch-Hadamard coded blocks
in time
> > and space. Pawel Jalocha's code is running matrix of decoders
spaced
> > by one half of Olivia tone spacing in frequency and one half
of tone
> > spacing in time. He is calculating signal level (or quality,
> > correlation or whatever one wants to name it) of each of the
dec

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed.

[Patrick Lindecker]

Hello Andy,

The Multipsk code is not better than the Pawel's design. If I had to rewrite 
the code, I would prefer to use the Pawel's design because it is simpler. 
Simply when I wrote it, I was used to do this way (as with MFSK16, PSK31...) 
and moreover, I had doubts about the precision of a double-estimation by 
symbol. 10 estimations per symbol seemed to me much better, but of course, it 
would have be necessary to load much the CPU, so I forgot it.
But I was wrong, because under a good S/N, this precision (double-estimation by 
symbol) is not necessary and under a bad S/N, it all cases this precision is 
homogeneous with the precision of symbol estimation. 

Note: it is reminded that, under noise, the quick degradation of decoding is 
due to :
* the loss of symbol synchronization,
* the imprecision of the symbol estimation.
This can be seen in an "eye" diagram.

73
Patrick

  - Original Message - 
  From: Andrew O'Brien 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 6:08 PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed.


  So does this mean that Patrick has IMPROVED on Pawel's design and the "true" 
implementation within DM780 is not as effective, or is DM780 slower but better 
at decoding ?

  Andy




  On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Patrick Lindecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Hello Votjech,

>I believe the difference between Patrick's MultiPSK and Pawel's
>original Olivia code is in the way how the sync time is adjusted after
>the initial sync is reached. Partick's code locks in time and only
Yes it is as you described (you are perspicacious!). The symbol 
synchronization is done as in MFSK16, or other mode with a non-linearity and a 
PLL to follow slight variations.

However, I use the complete Pawel strategy for RS ID.


> synchronization and for decoding very weak signal, additionaly
> introduced 1 second lag in case of Olivia1000/32 is annoying. 

I don't think there is some issue for weak signal.
I tried here comparing Mixw, Multipsk and OliviaAid with a very noisy 
transmission: the decodings are more or less equivalent.

The results are the following (with a signal at -13 dB of S/N Gaussian 
which is the limit for Olivia 32-1000 decoding): 
* OliviaAid: 120 characters decoded, 
* Mixw: 164 characters decoded, 
* Multipsk: 208 characters decoded. 

However, I tested on Gaussian noise, when real conditions could be very 
different from a Gaussian noise (QSB was not simulated for example) and so the 
results could be different... 

73

Patrick


- Original Message - 
From: "Vojtech Bubnik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 4:14 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed.


> Hi Andy.
> 
> Let's say one works with Olivia 1000/32. Olivia sends/receives 7bit
> ASCII letters. Each 7 bit letter is coded by Walch-Hadamard
> transformation into 2^(7-1)=64 bits. One of 32 tones modulation codes
> 32=2^5 combinations, which equals to 5 binary bits. Olivia is
> spreading 5 7bit letters over 64 MFSK32 tones. It takes 64/31.25=2.048
> seconds to transmit one block of 5 letters. I hope this explains why
> the received letters appear in groups of five and why there is a
> considerable lag, which cannot be lower than 2 seconds for any decoder.
> 
> Olivia receiver searches for the Walch-Hadamard coded blocks in time
> and space. Pawel Jalocha's code is running matrix of decoders spaced
> by one half of Olivia tone spacing in frequency and one half of tone
> spacing in time. He is calculating signal level (or quality,
> correlation or whatever one wants to name it) of each of the decoder
> in the matrix to check, whether and/or where a valid Olivia block was
> received.
> 
> I believe the difference between Patrick's MultiPSK and Pawel's
> original Olivia code is in the way how the sync time is adjusted after
> the initial sync is reached. Partick's code locks in time and only
> slightly adjusts the sync time to cope with differences in RX/TX sound
> card clock callibration the same way his or any other MFSK16 decoder
> works. Pawel's code is always looking up one half of block time after
> the expected sync time. While Pawel's strategy is good for initial
> synchronization and for decoding very weak signal, additionaly
> introduced 1 second lag in case of Olivia1000/32 is annoying. 
> 
> I believe Pawel's code may be improved to decrease time lag in case
> the decoder is already locked to a strong signal. Also if a  strong
> correlation is

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed.

[Andrew O'Brien]

So does this mean that Patrick has IMPROVED on Pawel's design and the "true"
implementation within DM780 is not as effective, or is DM780 slower but
better at decoding ?

Andy



On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Patrick Lindecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Hello Votjech,
>
> >I believe the difference between Patrick's MultiPSK and Pawel's
> >original Olivia code is in the way how the sync time is adjusted after
> >the initial sync is reached. Partick's code locks in time and only
> Yes it is as you described (you are perspicacious!). The symbol
> synchronization is done as in MFSK16, or other mode with a non-linearity and
> a PLL to follow slight variations.
>
> However, I use the complete Pawel strategy for RS ID.
>
> > synchronization and for decoding very weak signal, additionaly
> > introduced 1 second lag in case of Olivia1000/32 is annoying.
> I don't think there is some issue for weak signal.
>
> I tried here comparing Mixw, Multipsk and OliviaAid with a very noisy
> transmission: the decodings are more or less equivalent.
>
> The results are the following (with a signal at -13 dB of S/N Gaussian
> which is the limit for Olivia 32-1000 decoding):
> * OliviaAid: 120 characters decoded,
> * Mixw: 164 characters decoded,
> * Multipsk: 208 characters decoded.
>
> However, I tested on Gaussian noise, when real conditions could be very
> different from a Gaussian noise (QSB was not simulated for example) and so
> the results could be different...
>
> 73
>
> Patrick
>
> - Original Message -
>  From: "Vojtech Bubnik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 4:14 PM
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed.
>
> > Hi Andy.
> >
> > Let's say one works with Olivia 1000/32. Olivia sends/receives 7bit
> > ASCII letters. Each 7 bit letter is coded by Walch-Hadamard
> > transformation into 2^(7-1)=64 bits. One of 32 tones modulation codes
> > 32=2^5 combinations, which equals to 5 binary bits. Olivia is
> > spreading 5 7bit letters over 64 MFSK32 tones. It takes 64/31.25=2.048
> > seconds to transmit one block of 5 letters. I hope this explains why
> > the received letters appear in groups of five and why there is a
> > considerable lag, which cannot be lower than 2 seconds for any decoder.
> >
> > Olivia receiver searches for the Walch-Hadamard coded blocks in time
> > and space. Pawel Jalocha's code is running matrix of decoders spaced
> > by one half of Olivia tone spacing in frequency and one half of tone
> > spacing in time. He is calculating signal level (or quality,
> > correlation or whatever one wants to name it) of each of the decoder
> > in the matrix to check, whether and/or where a valid Olivia block was
> > received.
> >
> > I believe the difference between Patrick's MultiPSK and Pawel's
> > original Olivia code is in the way how the sync time is adjusted after
> > the initial sync is reached. Partick's code locks in time and only
> > slightly adjusts the sync time to cope with differences in RX/TX sound
> > card clock callibration the same way his or any other MFSK16 decoder
> > works. Pawel's code is always looking up one half of block time after
> > the expected sync time. While Pawel's strategy is good for initial
> > synchronization and for decoding very weak signal, additionaly
> > introduced 1 second lag in case of Olivia1000/32 is annoying.
> >
> > I believe Pawel's code may be improved to decrease time lag in case
> > the decoder is already locked to a strong signal. Also if a  strong
> > correlation is detected, one does not need to wait another 1 second
> > for even stronger signal, because this is highly improbable. I believe
> > Patrick's MFSK is doing both.
> >
> > Also if the signal is very strong, then one may break into a middle of
> > a block and the block will be detected correctly with the prerequisity
> > that the decoder will be flushed at the time one changes frequency
> > either on waterfall or by tuning knob. I don't think any Olivia
> > decoder is flushed at tuning change.
> >
> > It sounds like a challenge for my PocketDigi code, but don't tell my
> > wife I have a new project  :-)
> >
> > 73, Vojtech OK1IAK
> >
> >
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Folks, when Simon was first adding Olivia to DM780 he studied Pawel
> >> Jalocha's coding and consulted wit

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed.

[Patrick Lindecker]

Hello Votjech,

>I believe the difference between Patrick's MultiPSK and Pawel's
>original Olivia code is in the way how the sync time is adjusted after
>the initial sync is reached. Partick's code locks in time and only
Yes it is as you described (you are perspicacious!). The symbol synchronization 
is done as in MFSK16, or other mode with a non-linearity and a PLL to follow 
slight variations.

However, I use the complete Pawel strategy for RS ID.

> synchronization and for decoding very weak signal, additionaly
> introduced 1 second lag in case of Olivia1000/32 is annoying. 
I don't think there is some issue for weak signal.
I tried here comparing Mixw, Multipsk and OliviaAid with a very noisy 
transmission: the decodings are more or less equivalent.

The results are the following (with a signal at -13 dB of S/N Gaussian which is 
the limit for Olivia 32-1000 decoding): 
* OliviaAid: 120 characters decoded, 
* Mixw: 164 characters decoded, 
* Multipsk: 208 characters decoded. 

However, I tested on Gaussian noise, when real conditions could be very 
different from a Gaussian noise (QSB was not simulated for example) and so the 
results could be different... 

73

Patrick


- Original Message - 
From: "Vojtech Bubnik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 4:14 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed.


> Hi Andy.
> 
> Let's say one works with Olivia 1000/32. Olivia sends/receives 7bit
> ASCII letters. Each 7 bit letter is coded by Walch-Hadamard
> transformation into 2^(7-1)=64 bits. One of 32 tones modulation codes
> 32=2^5 combinations, which equals to 5 binary bits. Olivia is
> spreading 5 7bit letters over 64 MFSK32 tones. It takes 64/31.25=2.048
> seconds to transmit one block of 5 letters. I hope this explains why
> the received letters appear in groups of five and why there is a
> considerable lag, which cannot be lower than 2 seconds for any decoder.
> 
> Olivia receiver searches for the Walch-Hadamard coded blocks in time
> and space. Pawel Jalocha's code is running matrix of decoders spaced
> by one half of Olivia tone spacing in frequency and one half of tone
> spacing in time. He is calculating signal level (or quality,
> correlation or whatever one wants to name it) of each of the decoder
> in the matrix to check, whether and/or where a valid Olivia block was
> received.
> 
> I believe the difference between Patrick's MultiPSK and Pawel's
> original Olivia code is in the way how the sync time is adjusted after
> the initial sync is reached. Partick's code locks in time and only
> slightly adjusts the sync time to cope with differences in RX/TX sound
> card clock callibration the same way his or any other MFSK16 decoder
> works. Pawel's code is always looking up one half of block time after
> the expected sync time. While Pawel's strategy is good for initial
> synchronization and for decoding very weak signal, additionaly
> introduced 1 second lag in case of Olivia1000/32 is annoying. 
> 
> I believe Pawel's code may be improved to decrease time lag in case
> the decoder is already locked to a strong signal. Also if a  strong
> correlation is detected, one does not need to wait another 1 second
> for even stronger signal, because this is highly improbable. I believe
> Patrick's MFSK is doing both.
> 
> Also if the signal is very strong, then one may break into a middle of
> a block and the block will be detected correctly with the prerequisity
> that the decoder will be flushed at the time one changes frequency
> either on waterfall or by tuning knob. I don't think any Olivia
> decoder is flushed at tuning change.
> 
> It sounds like a challenge for my PocketDigi code, but don't tell my
> wife I have a new project  :-)
> 
> 73, Vojtech OK1IAK
> 
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Folks, when Simon was first adding Olivia to DM780 he studied Pawel
>> Jalocha's coding and consulted with him about the correct
> implementation.
>> The lag noticed in DM780 is reportedly as the Pawel Jalocha 
> intended.  What
>> I am looking for is people to get on the air with Olivia and see if the
>> applications that may have less lag , have any noticeable decoding
>> degradation.  Since I know Olivia in MixW and Multipsk work well, I am
>> wondering if the "proper" implimentation of Olivia in DM780 is worth the
>> delay and issues this causes during a QSO (those not knowing about
> the lag
>> think we are not coming back to them and start a transmission again )
>> 
>> Andy
>> 
>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:18 AM, Simo

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed.

[Simon Brown (KNS)]

Vojtech,

If you can improve this with Pawel's code base many developers would be most 
grateful :-)

Simon Brown, HB9DRV
www.ham-radio-deluxe.com

- Original Message - 
From: "Vojtech Bubnik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I believe Pawel's code may be improved to decrease time lag in case
> the decoder is already locked to a strong signal. Also if a  strong
> correlation is detected, one does not need to wait another 1 second
> for even stronger signal, because this is highly improbable. I believe
> Patrick's MFSK is doing both.
>

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed.

[Vojtech Bubnik]

Hi Andy.

Let's say one works with Olivia 1000/32. Olivia sends/receives 7bit
ASCII letters. Each 7 bit letter is coded by Walch-Hadamard
transformation into 2^(7-1)=64 bits. One of 32 tones modulation codes
32=2^5 combinations, which equals to 5 binary bits. Olivia is
spreading 5 7bit letters over 64 MFSK32 tones. It takes 64/31.25=2.048
seconds to transmit one block of 5 letters. I hope this explains why
the received letters appear in groups of five and why there is a
considerable lag, which cannot be lower than 2 seconds for any decoder.

Olivia receiver searches for the Walch-Hadamard coded blocks in time
and space. Pawel Jalocha's code is running matrix of decoders spaced
by one half of Olivia tone spacing in frequency and one half of tone
spacing in time. He is calculating signal level (or quality,
correlation or whatever one wants to name it) of each of the decoder
in the matrix to check, whether and/or where a valid Olivia block was
received.

I believe the difference between Patrick's MultiPSK and Pawel's
original Olivia code is in the way how the sync time is adjusted after
the initial sync is reached. Partick's code locks in time and only
slightly adjusts the sync time to cope with differences in RX/TX sound
card clock callibration the same way his or any other MFSK16 decoder
works. Pawel's code is always looking up one half of block time after
the expected sync time. While Pawel's strategy is good for initial
synchronization and for decoding very weak signal, additionaly
introduced 1 second lag in case of Olivia1000/32 is annoying. 

I believe Pawel's code may be improved to decrease time lag in case
the decoder is already locked to a strong signal. Also if a  strong
correlation is detected, one does not need to wait another 1 second
for even stronger signal, because this is highly improbable. I believe
Patrick's MFSK is doing both.

Also if the signal is very strong, then one may break into a middle of
a block and the block will be detected correctly with the prerequisity
that the decoder will be flushed at the time one changes frequency
either on waterfall or by tuning knob. I don't think any Olivia
decoder is flushed at tuning change.

It sounds like a challenge for my PocketDigi code, but don't tell my
wife I have a new project  :-)

73, Vojtech OK1IAK


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Folks, when Simon was first adding Olivia to DM780 he studied Pawel
> Jalocha's coding and consulted with him about the correct
implementation.
> The lag noticed in DM780 is reportedly as the Pawel Jalocha 
intended.  What
> I am looking for is people to get on the air with Olivia and see if the
> applications that may have less lag , have any noticeable decoding
> degradation.  Since I know Olivia in MixW and Multipsk work well, I am
> wondering if the "proper" implimentation of Olivia in DM780 is worth the
> delay and issues this causes during a QSO (those not knowing about
the lag
> think we are not coming back to them and start a transmission again )
> 
> Andy
> 
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:18 AM, Simon Brown (KNS)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> 
> >   The lag is in the software - it's part of the design for the error
> > correction. Where error correction is part of the design then *in
general*
> > with Ham modes you have to wait a while before text is decoding is the
> > error
> > correction is applied. The lag is not caused by CPU load.
> >
> > To really understand this it's best to analyse the Olivia design
although
> > this can be rough for the brain :-)
> >
> >
> > Simon Brown, HB9DRV
> > www.ham-radio-deluxe.com
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "captcurt2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
> >
> > > Sooo. a 500Mhhz machine running at 20% is going to perform the
> > > integrations and decoding same delay as a 2 Ghz machine running
at 20%??
> > >
> > > That seems counter intuitive to me..
> > >
> > > I'm sure you're right but I don't understand how that can be.
> > >
> > > I thought the load information talked about resources not speed of
> > > execution.
> > >
> > > Help me understand..
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Andy K3UK
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed.

[Ben W]

In the December 2008 QST there is an article about Olivia. 
 In that article is a reference to the latency, to me it 
sounded as if it's part of the protocol.

If only some Programs have the latency issue, then the 
operators using that software should tell the other 
operator about it in their first exchange, so the pause 
will be expected.

Satellite phones have an unnatural latency as well.

73 Ben-ne5B



On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:20:46 -
  "Mel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interleave is a tradeoff... improved error correction
> vs latency. If you are going to use a digital mode, as 
>an Amateur, 
> you have a responsibility to learn something about how 
>it works. For 
> the general population, software needs to be "idiot 
>proof". This 
> shouldn't be a constraint for software used by Amateurs 
>;-)
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Folks, when Simon was first adding Olivia to DM780 he 
>>studied Pawel
>> Jalocha's coding and consulted with him about the 
>>correct 
> implementation.
>> The lag noticed in DM780 is reportedly as the Pawel 
>>Jalocha  
> intended.  What
>> I am looking for is people to get on the air with Olivia 
>>and see if 
> the
>> applications that may have less lag , have any 
>>noticeable decoding
>> degradation.  Since I know Olivia in MixW and Multipsk 
>>work well, I 
> am
>> wondering if the "proper" implimentation of Olivia in 
>>DM780 is 
> worth the
>> delay and issues this causes during a QSO (those not 
>>knowing about 
> the lag
>> think we are not coming back to them and start a 
>>transmission 
> again )
>> 
>> Andy
>> 
>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:18 AM, Simon Brown (KNS) 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>> 
>> >   The lag is in the software - it's part of the design 
>>for the 
> error
>> > correction. Where error correction is part of the 
>>design then *in 
> general*
>> > with Ham modes you have to wait a while before text is 
>>decoding 
> is the
>> > error
>> > correction is applied. The lag is not caused by CPU 
>>load.
>> >
>> > To really understand this it's best to analyse the 
>>Olivia design 
> although
>> > this can be rough for the brain :-)
>> >
>> >
>> > Simon Brown, HB9DRV
>> > www.ham-radio-deluxe.com
>> >
>> > - Original Message -
>> > From: "captcurt2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>>>
>> >
>> > > Sooo. a 500Mhhz machine running at 20% is going to 
>>perform the
>> > > integrations and decoding same delay as a 2 Ghz 
>>machine running 
> at 20%??
>> > >
>> > > That seems counter intuitive to me..
>> > >
>> > > I'm sure you're right but I don't understand how 
>>that can be.
>> > >
>> > > I thought the load information talked about 
>>resources not speed 
> of
>> > > execution.
>> > >
>> > > Help me understand..
>> >
>> >  
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Andy K3UK
>>
> 
> 

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed.

[captcurt2000]

Well...I guess if you consider that asking reasonable questions in a
technical forum to qualify someone as an idiot, it kind of says
something about the technical value of your response.

Where better to turn in order to "learn how it works" than a forum
like this??

Thanks for nothing..

Curt
KU8L





--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Mel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Interleave is a tradeoff... improved error correction
> vs latency. If you are going to use a digital mode, as an Amateur, 
> you have a responsibility to learn something about how it works. For 
> the general population, software needs to be "idiot proof". This 
> shouldn't be a constraint for software used by Amateurs ;-)
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > Folks, when Simon was first adding Olivia to DM780 he studied Pawel
> > Jalocha's coding and consulted with him about the correct 
> implementation.
> > The lag noticed in DM780 is reportedly as the Pawel Jalocha  
> intended.  What
> > I am looking for is people to get on the air with Olivia and see if 
> the
> > applications that may have less lag , have any noticeable decoding
> > degradation.  Since I know Olivia in MixW and Multipsk work well, I 
> am
> > wondering if the "proper" implimentation of Olivia in DM780 is 
> worth the
> > delay and issues this causes during a QSO (those not knowing about 
> the lag
> > think we are not coming back to them and start a transmission 
> again )
> > 
> > Andy
> > 
> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:18 AM, Simon Brown (KNS) 
> wrote:
> > 
> > >   The lag is in the software - it's part of the design for the 
> error
> > > correction. Where error correction is part of the design then *in 
> general*
> > > with Ham modes you have to wait a while before text is decoding 
> is the
> > > error
> > > correction is applied. The lag is not caused by CPU load.
> > >
> > > To really understand this it's best to analyse the Olivia design 
> although
> > > this can be rough for the brain :-)
> > >
> > >
> > > Simon Brown, HB9DRV
> > > www.ham-radio-deluxe.com
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "captcurt2000" >
> > >
> > > > Sooo. a 500Mhhz machine running at 20% is going to perform the
> > > > integrations and decoding same delay as a 2 Ghz machine running 
> at 20%??
> > > >
> > > > That seems counter intuitive to me..
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure you're right but I don't understand how that can be.
> > > >
> > > > I thought the load information talked about resources not speed 
> of
> > > > execution.
> > > >
> > > > Help me understand..
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Andy K3UK
> >
>

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed.

[Mel]

Interleave is a tradeoff... improved error correction
vs latency. If you are going to use a digital mode, as an Amateur, 
you have a responsibility to learn something about how it works. For 
the general population, software needs to be "idiot proof". This 
shouldn't be a constraint for software used by Amateurs ;-)

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Folks, when Simon was first adding Olivia to DM780 he studied Pawel
> Jalocha's coding and consulted with him about the correct 
implementation.
> The lag noticed in DM780 is reportedly as the Pawel Jalocha  
intended.  What
> I am looking for is people to get on the air with Olivia and see if 
the
> applications that may have less lag , have any noticeable decoding
> degradation.  Since I know Olivia in MixW and Multipsk work well, I 
am
> wondering if the "proper" implimentation of Olivia in DM780 is 
worth the
> delay and issues this causes during a QSO (those not knowing about 
the lag
> think we are not coming back to them and start a transmission 
again )
> 
> Andy
> 
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:18 AM, Simon Brown (KNS) 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> 
> >   The lag is in the software - it's part of the design for the 
error
> > correction. Where error correction is part of the design then *in 
general*
> > with Ham modes you have to wait a while before text is decoding 
is the
> > error
> > correction is applied. The lag is not caused by CPU load.
> >
> > To really understand this it's best to analyse the Olivia design 
although
> > this can be rough for the brain :-)
> >
> >
> > Simon Brown, HB9DRV
> > www.ham-radio-deluxe.com
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "captcurt2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
> >
> > > Sooo. a 500Mhhz machine running at 20% is going to perform the
> > > integrations and decoding same delay as a 2 Ghz machine running 
at 20%??
> > >
> > > That seems counter intuitive to me..
> > >
> > > I'm sure you're right but I don't understand how that can be.
> > >
> > > I thought the load information talked about resources not speed 
of
> > > execution.
> > >
> > > Help me understand..
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Andy K3UK
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed.

[Andrew O'Brien]

Folks, when Simon was first adding Olivia to DM780 he studied Pawel
Jalocha's coding and consulted with him about the correct implementation.
The lag noticed in DM780 is reportedly as the Pawel Jalocha  intended.  What
I am looking for is people to get on the air with Olivia and see if the
applications that may have less lag , have any noticeable decoding
degradation.  Since I know Olivia in MixW and Multipsk work well, I am
wondering if the "proper" implimentation of Olivia in DM780 is worth the
delay and issues this causes during a QSO (those not knowing about the lag
think we are not coming back to them and start a transmission again )

Andy

On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:18 AM, Simon Brown (KNS) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>   The lag is in the software - it's part of the design for the error
> correction. Where error correction is part of the design then *in general*
> with Ham modes you have to wait a while before text is decoding is the
> error
> correction is applied. The lag is not caused by CPU load.
>
> To really understand this it's best to analyse the Olivia design although
> this can be rough for the brain :-)
>
>
> Simon Brown, HB9DRV
> www.ham-radio-deluxe.com
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "captcurt2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
>
> > Sooo. a 500Mhhz machine running at 20% is going to perform the
> > integrations and decoding same delay as a 2 Ghz machine running at 20%??
> >
> > That seems counter intuitive to me..
> >
> > I'm sure you're right but I don't understand how that can be.
> >
> > I thought the load information talked about resources not speed of
> > execution.
> >
> > Help me understand..
>
>  
>



-- 
Andy K3UK

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed.

[Simon Brown (KNS)]

The lag is in the software - it's part of the design for the error 
correction. Where error correction is part of the design then *in general* 
with Ham modes you have to wait a while before text is decoding is the error 
correction is applied. The lag is not caused by CPU load.

To really understand this it's best to analyse the Olivia design although 
this can be rough for the brain :-)

Simon Brown, HB9DRV
www.ham-radio-deluxe.com

- Original Message - 
From: "captcurt2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> Sooo. a 500Mhhz machine running at 20% is going to perform the
> integrations and decoding same delay as a 2 Ghz machine running at 20%??
>
> That seems counter intuitive to me..
>
> I'm sure you're right but I don't understand how that can be.
>
> I thought the load information talked about resources not speed of
> execution.
>
> Help me understand..

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed.

[captcurt2000]

Sooo. a 500Mhhz machine running at 20% is going to perform the
integrations and decoding same delay as a 2 Ghz machine running at 20%??  

That seems counter intuitive to me..

I'm sure you're right but I don't understand how that can be.

I thought the load information talked about resources not speed of
execution.

Help me understand..

Thanks

Curt
KU8L




--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Simon Brown \(KNS\)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> MIPS shouldn't have any effect as long as the CPU doesn't run at 100%.
> 
> Olivia likes a calibrated soundcard.
> 
> Simon Brown, HB9DRV
> www.ham-radio-deluxe.com
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "captcurt2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> 
> > How are you going to make sense of the variety of MIPS performance
> > across different testers, or are you just looking for trends.  A is
> > faster here than B, etc?
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed.

[Rick W]

Maybe there would be interest in what some of us sometimes monitor for 
the NBEMS frequencies of 3584, 7067, 10136, 14074, all with + 1500 Hz 
audio center.

If you have a known frequency, you can even print stations that would 
otherwise never be copied in the noise.

73,

Rick, KV9U


Lynn wrote:
> Andy,
>
> I can test all software packages any weekday during the mid-day hours 
> or weekends.
> Lynn - KB3FN
>
>   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed.

[Simon Brown (KNS)]

MIPS shouldn't have any effect as long as the CPU doesn't run at 100%.

Olivia likes a calibrated soundcard.

Simon Brown, HB9DRV
www.ham-radio-deluxe.com

- Original Message - 
From: "captcurt2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> How are you going to make sense of the variety of MIPS performance
> across different testers, or are you just looking for trends.  A is
> faster here than B, etc?

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed.

[captcurt2000]

How are you going to make sense of the variety of MIPS performance
across different testers, or are you just looking for trends.  A is
faster here than B, etc?

I run all but DM780--it doesnt like Win2K and my soundcard/machine
configuration.  Currently running Fldigi--Win, not Linux.

Curt

KU8L

EN82hi




--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed.
> 
> I am interested in testing  weak signal reception of Olivia 500/16
in the
> following applications
> 
> Multipsk
> DM780
> MixW
> FL-Digi
> 
> I'm looking to test the above applications and...
> 
> 1  Determine the typical "lag" experienced when decoding .  I am led to
> believe that some applications have a 5 second or so lag that
occurs, the
> time from when the transmitting station is heard to stop
transmitting and
> when the last transmitted character arrives on your screen
> 
> 2.   If there is a noticeable lag between these applications,
determine if
> the the longer/shorter lag helps with decoding accuracy, or not.
> 
> If you have the ability to use the above applications and are willing to
> listen for Olivia signals, I would appreciate you reports.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Andy K3UK
>

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed.

[Lynn]

Andy,

I can test all software packages any weekday during the mid-day hours 
or weekends.
Lynn - KB3FN

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed.
> 
> I am interested in testing  weak signal reception of Olivia 500/16 
in the
> following applications
> 
> Multipsk
> DM780
> MixW
> FL-Digi
> 

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed

[Al]

Andy...

I can help out Mon, Tue, and Wed of next week during the day. Also the week of 
15 December, 22 December and 29 December... Please advise as to times and 
frequencies you wish to use...

I use OLIVIA 1000hz/32 tones for a MARS digital net I run and we have found it 
to be very good in weak signal conditions...

I'm using DM780 here... I'm running a G5RV that works well on 80, 75 and 40 
meters... 

73 Al, W8AII/ AAT5DZ
Ohio Army MARS


  

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed.

[dl8le]

Here is my personal experience comparing Multipsk and DM-780 in 
Olivia 500/16:

DM-780 needs significant more time for synchronizing than Multipsk 
(the first 2 or even 3 or 4 letters of a call are not decoded in DM-
780). I haven't seen any better decoding by DM-780 under S/N figures 
down to -10 / -11 dB. 

73

Juergen, DL8LE

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed.
> 
> I am interested in testing  weak signal reception of Olivia 500/16 
in the
> following applications
> 
> Multipsk
> DM780
> MixW
> FL-Digi
> 
> I'm looking to test the above applications and...
> 
> 1  Determine the typical "lag" experienced when decoding .  I am 
led to
> believe that some applications have a 5 second or so lag that 
occurs, the
> time from when the transmitting station is heard to stop 
transmitting and
> when the last transmitted character arrives on your screen
> 
> 2.   If there is a noticeable lag between these applications, 
determine if
> the the longer/shorter lag helps with decoding accuracy, or not.
> 
> If you have the ability to use the above applications and are 
willing to
> listen for Olivia signals, I would appreciate you reports.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Andy K3UK
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia Mode : ] Call CQ from VY2 Prince Edward Island

[Claudio Ruben]

Hi: May you try in 20 or 15 meters?.

Claudio-LU2VCD


2008/8/24, Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>   He's on now but conditions just aren't there for me.
>
> > Hi will be calling CQ on 10.137.750 + 1500 only
> > Aug 21 to 25
> > active in the morning and evening ADST time zone
> > 73
> > John VE1CDD/VY2
> >
>
> 
>

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia Mode : ] Call CQ from VY2 Prince Edward Island

[Benson]

He's on now but conditions just aren't there for me.


 
> Hi will be calling CQ on 10.137.750 + 1500 only
> Aug 21 to 25
> active in the morning  and evening  ADST time zone
> 73
> John VE1CDD/VY2
>

[digitalradio] Re: [olivia] Re: MultiPSK 4.8 doesn't decode all that great on Olivia

[Jose A. Amador]

garylinnrobinson wrote:

> I didn't do my comparison's on MixW and Olivia Aid -  I did them with
> DM780 and just recently FLDigi on a separate computer but same sound
> feed from transceiver since FLDigi is on Linux. Same results.
> 
> You can say it's just Gary but I don't believe it. And it is doesn't
> apply to PSK or RTTY they work abt the same on all the progs.
> 
> If I have to own a special computer or special soundcard or do some
> special soundcard alignment that I haven't already done - too many
> hoops for the regular user let alone a guy who has worked in the
> computer industry as a tech and programmer as I have.

There are several factors to consider in order to achieve a fair 
relative evaluation, and I am sure you know with your claimed background.

First, with the data you have at hand could you achieve a quantitative 
evaluation? As Lord Kelvin stated a long time ago, in science and 
engineering you actually need numbers to avoid fuzziness. To dissipate 
doubts, it could be useful if you could also provide your data sets for 
independent evaluation.

Second, are your two computers identical? Same sound card, processor, 
speed, memory, you certainly wouldn't need to be told all the factors to 
weigh.

Third, as I understand, the "AC97 timing syndrome" only happens on 
Windows. On Linux and Unix derivatives, queues, semaphores, etc, have 
different priorities, and so far, Linux fares better with "run of the 
mill" soundcards and associated delays, even when that does not make 
differences insignificant, for many reasons, not related exclusively to 
timing. Signal levels, distortion, noise, A/D and D/A converters 
linearity, Hamming distances of different modulation formats, FEC, data 
interleaving are also important factors and certainly have an influence 
on received BER.

Something that would be quite peculiar, if proven true, is that all 
modes show exactly the same problems. It seems important to sort out 
this particular allegged behavior with valid data to substantiate it.

Linux certainly could give an edge to FLDigi, which is, in fact, also a 
good performer. It might be interesting to evaluate also GMFSK or other 
available programs, for sake of completeness.

I feel that the last paragraph of your posting above is particularly 
unfair. In many aspects of life, there exist well known 
price/performance tradeoffs, be clothing, cars, CPU's, soundcards, just 
to mention a few well known and some relevant ones. When the multimode 
boxes were predominant, there were designs and brands that were 
undoubtedly superior to others.

I believe that it is a formidable feat to achieve a similar perforance 
between dedicated boxes with single tasking processors and computers 
with multiple running tasks on a multitasking or task switching 
environment like Windows, at the cost it gets achieved.

I have not made any well documented comparisons myself previously, and I 
am using an average card for receiving, an Audigy 2, which is not a 
Delta, an EMU, or a higher cost cousin, but neither an AC97. So far, I 
have not found substantial differences between MultiPSK and MixW, before 
I began using MultiPSK almost exclusively when versions 4.xx appeared. 
My soundcard does not require a noticeably different setting from its 
default.

Nevertheless, hardware differences may be so many among users, and 
behaviors under different OS versions that an independent developer 
cannot evaluate all possible influences without the beta testers and 
users feedback. Other programs I also use corroborate such a situation. 
I believe that all users could certainly gain with a fair evaluation 
that unveils problems that a developer alone cannot certainly find.

73,

Jose, CO2JA

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia

[garylinnrobinson]

I was reading through these earlier postings and came across this one 
and was a little bit baffled.  How did you measure the throughput of 
Olivia 250/2?  From my testing it appears to be approx. 38wpm not 10. 
Though that is clearly not as fast as RTTY.  Olivia has never been 
about being super fast unless you run 2000/8 maybe. But does fast 
matter IF you can't get through? 
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ham Radio Deluxe/Digital Master 780 would have the 250/2 as well as 
many 
> other  mode as well as even 125/2. I measured the throughput of 
250/2 
> and it appears too slow for practical use at around only 10 wpm. 
Not 
> competitive with 45 baud RTTY at 60 wpm. I am sure it would be 
quite 
> robust however.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Rick, KV9U
> 
> John Bradley wrote:
> >
> > After you came up with the idea Sholto, I was fooling around with 
Rtty 
> > and Olivia 250/2, and they are very close to the same speed.
> >
> > MixW has 250/2 , so was playing with it.
> >
> >  
> >
> > It would be interesting to see which would do better under poor 
> > conditions, which are the norm lately
> >
> >  
> >
> > John
> >
> > VE5MU
> >
> >  
> >
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia

[Steinar Aanesland]

ok, ok ,ok , I am not used to the Digital Master 780. My favorite 
software is multipsk.

Have a nice day de LA5VNA Steinar



Rick skrev:
>
> Did not my message go through yesterday? I had mentioned that Ham Radio
> Deluxe/Digital Master 780 works with 2/250 although the speed is very
> slow and probably not practical for most of us at perhaps 10 wpm.
> Someone had mentioned that it was competitive with RTTY but I would have
> to say that it would not be close to the speed of 45 baud RTTY though
> likely much more robust.
>
> Even though there are preset Olivia modes in the drop down menu in
> HRD/DM780, you can change the tones and bandwidth parameters in the
> boxes just below the displayed mode. That is why 2/250 is available,
> along with many other combinations.
>
> 73,
>
> Rick, KV9U
>
> Steinar Aanesland wrote:
> > Hi Andy
> >
> > Are you sure ? I have only 4/125 in my DM780 beta 1.1 build 1686
> >
> > 73 de LA5VNA Steinar
> >
> >
>
>  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia

[Rick]

Did not my message go through yesterday? I had mentioned that Ham Radio 
Deluxe/Digital Master 780 works with 2/250  although the speed is very 
slow and probably not practical for most of us at perhaps 10 wpm. 
Someone had mentioned that it was competitive with RTTY but I would have 
to say that it would not be close to the speed of 45 baud RTTY though 
likely much more robust.

Even though there are preset Olivia modes in the drop down menu in 
HRD/DM780, you can change the tones and bandwidth parameters in the 
boxes just below the displayed mode. That is why 2/250 is available, 
along with many other combinations.

73,

Rick, KV9U


Steinar Aanesland wrote:
> Hi Andy
>
> Are you sure ? I have only  4/125 in my DM780 beta 1.1 build 1686
>
> 73 de LA5VNA Steinar
>
>   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia

[Steinar Aanesland]

Hi Andy

Are you sure ? I have only  4/125 in my DM780 beta 1.1 build 1686

73 de LA5VNA Steinar




Andrew O'Brien skrev:
>
> DM780 also supports 2/250
>
> Andy K3UK
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
> , Jose Amador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> >
> > Jon Maguire escribió:
> > > Sholto, does Multipsk support 2/250? I didn't see it in the
> selection
> > > list.
> > >
> > > 73... Jon W1MNK
> >
> > No...but MixW does, from the very useful to the very useless
> tones/BW
> > combinations
> >
> > Jose, CO2JA
> >
> >
> >
> > __
> >
> > Participe en Universidad 2008.
> > 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008.
> > Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba
> > http://www.universidad2008.cu 
> >
>
>  

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia

[Andrew O'Brien]

DM780 also supports 2/250

Andy K3UK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose Amador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Jon Maguire escribió:
> >  Sholto, does Multipsk support 2/250? I didn't see it in the 
selection
> >  list.
> >
> >  73... Jon W1MNK
> 
> No...but MixW does, from the very useful to the very useless 
tones/BW 
> combinations
> 
> Jose, CO2JA
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> Participe en Universidad 2008.
> 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008.
> Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba
> http://www.universidad2008.cu
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia

[Jose Amador]

Jon Maguire escribió:
>  Sholto, does Multipsk support 2/250? I didn't see it in the selection
>  list.
>
>  73... Jon W1MNK

No...but MixW does, from the very useful to the very useless tones/BW 
combinations

Jose, CO2JA



__

Participe en Universidad 2008.
11 al 15 de febrero del 2008.
Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba
http://www.universidad2008.cu

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia

[Jon Maguire]

Sholto, does Multipsk support 2/250? I didn't see it in the selection list.

73... Jon W1MNK

> Has anyone ever experimented with the 2 tone Olivia submodes?
> How does say the 2/250 mode compare to regular RTTY?
>
> 73, Sholto KE7HPV

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia question

[Jerry W]

Jeff,

What program are you trying to set up for Olivia also what is your
brand and model of the transceiver and sound device (internal or USB?).


Jerry - K0HZI





--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "jeffnjr484" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> hello,
> 
> Happy New year to everyone!!. Anyone good with olivia an how to setup
> and stuff im having some problems with the program mainly don't have a
> clue what a good setup is and need someone to mentor and maybe test with
> Jeff kd4qit
>

[digitalradio] Re: OLIVIA 14074

[expeditionradio]

Hola Claudio,

Para informacion de moda la Olivia en las otras frecuencias:
http://hflink.com/olivia

73 Bonnie KQ6XA


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "toalje" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi: i read a post about WB6REZ calling in 14074 usb. The signal was 
> very clear in my screen but i didnt know the setup in this frecuency. 
> i usually call in 14105 with 1000-32 but in 14074 with this setup i 
> cant read nothing.
> 
> 73`s
> 
> CLAUDIO-lu2vcd
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia Software

[Matthew Chambers, W1JEQ]

  Copy the Olivia.dll file into the MixW folder (WinXP C:/Program  
Files/MixW/) If MixW is open, close it before doing this then after  
copying the dll file reopn MixW. It should then show up in the Mode  
Menu. If you continue to have difficulty feel free to email me off the  
reflector at [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
Matthew A. Chambers, W1JEQ
ARES Official Emergency Station
NEMO ARC Activities Director
Macon ARC and ARRL Member since 2003

Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:


To answer my own question, I found that I need to download the Olivia DLL
files from the MIxW Website.  I  tried to do this but must not be  doing it
right.  I am not getting it into the MixW program.

Joe



** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia Software

[ktnjoepark]

To answer my own question, I found that I need to download the Olivia DLL  
files from the MIxW Website.  I  tried to do this but must not be  doing it 
right.  I am not getting it into the MixW program.
 
Joe



** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia Software

[ktnjoepark]

I have MixW,  Olivia isnt on the list of Modes, ?? how can I get  it
 
tks
Joe WB6AGR



** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Re: [digitalradio] RE: Olivia software

[Patrick Lindecker]

Hello Al,

Yes the colors were "psychedelic" some versions ago but some Hams tell me that 
they were a bit agressive, so now the colors are more "pastel". However there 
are a lot of buttons and very few menus because I have no much memory to 
remember what are in the menus (I like XCVR with a lot of buttons and no menus).

73
Patrick

 




  - Original Message - 
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 4:23 PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] RE: Olivia software



  Multipsk supports it as well, and the entire program is free of charge. 
Except for it's "psychedelic" interface, I have used it and it compares well to 
MixW, for which I am a registered user.

  73,

  AL WB2JEP

   

[digitalradio] RE: Olivia software

[wb2jep]

Multipsk supports it as well, and the entire program is free of charge. Except 
for it's "psychedelic" interface, I have used it and it compares well to MixW, 
for which I am a registered user.

73,

AL WB2JEP

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia Software

[Peter G. Viscarola]

>
>> Does anyone have idea how to get a free OLIVIA software?  Any URL is
>> appreciated.
>>

MixW supports Olivia.  You DO need to download the (free) DLL, however.

de Peter K1PGV

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia Software

[Andrew O'Brien]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "KP4VP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Does anyone have idea how to get a free OLIVIA software?  Any URL is 
> appreciated.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Jos� - KP4VP
>

Try Multipsk.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia Frequencies, Olivia Frequency List

[Jose A. Amador]

larry allen wrote:

>  Greetings... Now, I don't know whether to feel awkward or not... What
>  is Olivia?... Larry ve3fxq

Olivia is the daughter of Pawel Jalocha.

He named the  new mode created by him after his daughter.  It is MFSK 
plus a layer of Walsh code.
Very versatile in tones, bandwidths, etc, people sometimes see it on the 
waterfall and don' t know
what parameter to change t decode it.

When it is well tuned, is one of the slowest, but most reliable modes. 
It can get to be decoded correctly without
a trace being heard or seen on the waterfall.

MixW, MultiPSK, FLDigi and gMFSK incorporate Olivia.

Sorry if I involuntarily omitted anything.

Jose, CO2JA




__

V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación 
Energética.
22 al 25 de mayo de 2007
Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba
http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia Frequencies, Olivia Frequency List

[larry allen]

Thanks
Larry

- Original Message - 
From: "Danny Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia Frequencies, Olivia Frequency List


> Another digital mode.  You can find it on MixW, and apparently MultiPSK 
> and
> a few other programs.
>
> Danny Douglas N7DC
> ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
> SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
> DX 2-6 years each
> .
> QSL LOTW-buro- direct
> As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you
>use that - also pls upload to LOTW
>or hard card.
>
> moderator  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk
> - Original Message - 
> From: "larry allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 3:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia Frequencies, Olivia Frequency 
> List
>
>
>> Greetings...
>> Now, I don't know whether to feel awkward or not...
>> What is Olivia?...
>> Larry ve3fxq
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Leigh L Klotz, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: 
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 11:52 AM
>> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia Frequencies, Olivia Frequency 
>> List
>>
>>
>> > Last night I heard ZS6BUN on 40m above a little above 7070.  Dick's
>> > signal got progressively weaker but still copyable.  I couldn't see 
>> > it
>> > in the noise, ans when I accidently jostled the rig, I couldn't find 
>> > it
>> > again, so I couldn't try calling when the other QSO ended.
>> > 73,
>> > Leigh/WA5ZNU
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Announce your digital  presence via our DX Cluster
> telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
>>
>> Our other groups:
>>
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.7/711 - Release Date: 
>> 3/5/2007
> 9:41 AM
>>
>>
>
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia Frequencies, Olivia Frequency List

[Danny Douglas]

Another digital mode.  You can find it on MixW, and apparently MultiPSK and
a few other programs.

Danny Douglas N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
DX 2-6 years each
.
QSL LOTW-buro- direct
As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you
use that - also pls upload to LOTW
or hard card.

moderator  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk
- Original Message - 
From: "larry allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia Frequencies, Olivia Frequency List


> Greetings...
> Now, I don't know whether to feel awkward or not...
> What is Olivia?...
> Larry ve3fxq
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Leigh L Klotz, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 11:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia Frequencies, Olivia Frequency List
>
>
> > Last night I heard ZS6BUN on 40m above a little above 7070.  Dick's
> > signal got progressively weaker but still copyable.  I couldn't see it
> > in the noise, ans when I accidently jostled the rig, I couldn't find it
> > again, so I couldn't try calling when the other QSO ended.
> > 73,
> > Leigh/WA5ZNU
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Announce your digital  presence via our DX Cluster
telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
>
> Our other groups:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.7/711 - Release Date: 3/5/2007
9:41 AM
>
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia Frequencies, Olivia Frequency List

[larry allen]

Greetings...
Now, I don't know whether to feel awkward or not...
What is Olivia?...
Larry ve3fxq

- Original Message - 
From: "Leigh L Klotz, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia Frequencies, Olivia Frequency List


> Last night I heard ZS6BUN on 40m above a little above 7070.  Dick's
> signal got progressively weaker but still copyable.  I couldn't see it
> in the noise, ans when I accidently jostled the rig, I couldn't find it
> again, so I couldn't try calling when the other QSO ended.
> 73,
> Leigh/WA5ZNU
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia Frequencies, Olivia Frequency List

[Jose A. Amador]

No, Bonnie. It was within 7070.3 and 7072.75R8GZ has always been on PSK,
as well as other ZS's. I did QSO with ZS6BUN in Olivia, but a shot QSO, 
he always
makes a stir on this side when many people start copying him.

It has been funny and interesting after all, because the lack of QSO's 
is due to low
activity, propagation is not so guilty.

There is a watering hole for Olivia, MFSK and sometimes Hell between 
7073 and 7075.
But activity levels vary a lot. I am also spending more time around  
7035 - 7038, there
is generally more variety of catch.
 
Jose, CO2JA


expeditionradio wrote:

>  If you know the exact frequency, I will add it to the list.
>
>  Bonnie KQ6XA
>
>  --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>  , "Jose A. Amador"
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I have been working repeatedly into ZS and 5R4 on 40 m since
>  November, a
> > bit before their local sunrise. ZS6BUN has quite a good signal
> > here,
>  for
> > that distance.
> >
> > Jose, CO2JA


__

V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación 
Energética.
22 al 25 de mayo de 2007
Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba
http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia Frequencies, Olivia Frequency List

[expeditionradio]

If you know the exact frequency, I will add it to the list.

Bonnie KQ6XA

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> I have been working repeatedly into ZS and 5R4 on 40 m since
November, a 
> bit before their local sunrise. ZS6BUN has quite a good signal here,
for 
> that distance.
> 
> Jose, CO2JA
> 
> ---
> 
> Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote:
> > 
> > Last night I heard ZS6BUN on 40m above a little above 7070. Dick's 
> > signal got progressively weaker but still copyable. I couldn't see it
> >  in the noise, ans when I accidently jostled the rig, I couldn't find
> > it again, so I couldn't try calling when the other QSO ended. 73, 
> > Leigh/WA5ZNU
> 
> __
> 
> V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía
y Educación Energética.
> 22 al 25 de mayo de 2007
> Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba
> http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia Frequencies, Olivia Frequency List

[Jose A. Amador]

I have been working repeatedly into ZS and 5R4 on 40 m since November, a 
bit before their local sunrise. ZS6BUN has quite a good signal here, for 
that distance.

Jose, CO2JA

---

Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote:
> 
> Last night I heard ZS6BUN on 40m above a little above 7070. Dick's 
> signal got progressively weaker but still copyable. I couldn't see it
>  in the noise, ans when I accidently jostled the rig, I couldn't find
> it again, so I couldn't try calling when the other QSO ended. 73, 
> Leigh/WA5ZNU

__

V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación 
Energética.
22 al 25 de mayo de 2007
Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba
http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia Frequencies, Olivia Frequency List

[Leigh L Klotz, Jr.]

Last night I heard ZS6BUN on 40m above a little above 7070.  Dick's 
signal got progressively weaker but still copyable.  I couldn't see it 
in the noise, ans when I accidently jostled the rig, I couldn't find it 
again, so I couldn't try calling when the other QSO ended.
73,
Leigh/WA5ZNU

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia Frequencies, Olivia Frequency List

[expeditionradio]

> David WB2HTO wrote:
> What are the best frequencies and times to listen for 
> Olivia signals?  Also, I understand there are variations 
> in the mode - what do I operate and where?
>

Most Olivia activity is on 14MHz.
 
Olivia using 32 Tones 1000Hz Bandwidth at 1000Hz Centre Audio
is found on the following exact USB Dial Frequencies:

14105.5 kHz USB
14106.5 kHz USB
14107.5 kHz USB (main calling frequency)
14108.5 kHz USB

Olivia using 16 Tones 500Hz Bandwidth at 750Hz Centre Audio 
is found on the following exact USB Dial Frequencies:

14075.65 USB (calling frequency)
14076.65 USB
14077.65 USB

A more complete list of Olivia frequencies for all bands is found here:
http://hflink.com/olivia/olivia.html

Olivia is different from some other types of amateur radio digital
keyboarding methods, because it can often be decoded perfectly in the
most poor signal-to-noise conditions, even when the human ear cannot
discern the presence of the signal, and even when it cannot be easily
seen on the conventional waterfall spectrum display. While amateurs
are free to roam the band using VFOs, operating on any amateur
frequency within the operator's license regulations, "voluntary
channelisation" of Olivia digital frequencies enhances the amateurs'
ability to synchronise and communicate with Olivia using extremely
weak signals that would otherwise be missed through searching via VFO
tuning. 

There are many different combinations of formats, but only 2 Olivia
MFSK bandwidth/tone formats are in common use. The 2 most common
formats for calling CQ or initiating QSOs are: Olivia 500/16 and
Olivia 1000/32. A different format may easily be chosen by the
operators after the QSO starts. There are advantages to faster typing
and better QRM resistance with Olivia 1000/32, and better decoding 
through static and noise with Olivia 500/16. 

Unfortunately, the Olivia 1000/32 frequencies on 14MHz are in 
the International automatic station sub-band. This problem is due 
to the bandwidth requirements of the IARU Region 1 bandplan 
(Europe/MidEast/Africa/Russia). 

Have fun, see you on Olivia!

73---Bonnie KQ6XA

.

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia dying?

[Bill McLaughlin]

Hi Leigh,

No protocol/technical reason...not sure there is a need as MFSK already 
does thatif there is an upside to Olivia sending pics versus MFSK 
it could be implimented.

73

Bill  N9DSJ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Leigh L Klotz, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Is there any reason we couldn't have images with Olivia?  

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia dying?

[Bill McLaughlin]

Hi Andy,

It is still a viable mode often used. Some other modes have other 
upsides...mfsk is robust yet fast and narrow and also has pic xfer 
capabilities. DominoEx does very well with or without FEC on 
160/80/40 and is also a narrow bandwidth mode at that speed.  
RTTYM/Contestia are less robust Olivia but faster.. a trade-off. 
BPSK31 is the most "popular" but one of the less robust modes 
available. Think is will all sort out in due timealot 
of "obscure" modes like PSKAM10 have their place.

73,

Bill N9DSJ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I received a Skype call from a ham asking me the very same question 
I
> was thinking last week...what has happened to Olivia?   Last year I
> would say it was behind only PSK31, Pactor and RTTY in terms of
> frequent actvity for digital modes.  Now I think it is not as 
commond
> as MFK16, Hell, and ALE.  What gives ?
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Andy K3UK
> Skype Me :  callto://andyobrien73
> www.obriensweb.com
>

[digitalradio] Re: "Olivia" the Magic Mode for QRP and DX (Olivia 500/16)

[expeditionradio]

>...reason that I and others have moved down:
> why battle persistent QRM from the automatic...
> segment 14105 to 14110.  ...On the other hand a low power 
> OLIVIA QSO in the 14074 and up segment is an enjoyable pastime.  

Hi John,

It was really nice to work you on 14076, and see so much Olivia 500
activity in that area of the 20m band. Wow! It makes it really easy 
to work DX or ragchew, and have fun with the different formats. 
Like opening up a window on the world in this low part of the 
solar cycle. A breath of fresh air. 

73---Bonnie KQ6XA

-
> Olivia is the excellent digital mode that works like magic for 
> QRP and DX. The sensitivity is so good, that a QSO can 100% print 
> when it is not possible to hear the other station below the noise, 
> nor see it on the waterfall display. PSK31 operators will be 
> really surprised by how Olivia cuts through noise and QRM.
> 
> Olivia has three popular flavors: 250Hz, 500Hz, and 1000Hz wide.
> 
> Operators who have tried Olivia before will notice increased 
> "Olivia 500/16" activity on 20 meters 14075.5 kHz to 14078.5 kHz 
> (500Hz wide with 16 tones, prints at -13dB below noise) [S/N ratio]. 
> Try 14076.4 (center freq) for calling. 
> http://hflink.com/olivia/olivia500_16_20meters.jpg
> 
> Olivia information, Olivia software links, Olivia frequency chart,
> click here:
> http://hflink.com/olivia/
> 
> The Olivia Yahoo Group is called OLIVIADATA.
> Join the Olivia group:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oliviadata/






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: "Olivia" the Magic Mode for QRP and DX (Olivia 500/16)

[Dave Bernstein]

Thanks for your perspective, John. It will be interesting to see 
whether Bonnie shares your motivation.

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> ffor the same reason that I and others have moved down: why battle 
persistent QRM from the automatic pactor stations in the segment 
14105 to 14110. 
> 
> I personally feel that I do not have to go up there and be QRM'd, 
then bitch about the QRM at great length from the nearest soap box 
It accomplishes nothing.
> 
> On the other hand a low power OLIVIA QSO in the 14074 and up 
segment is an enjoyable pastime. And since there are also lots of 
other interesting modes down there, such as PAX, Hell etc, why not?
> 
> John
> VE5MU
> 
> 
>   - Original Message - 
>   From: Dave Bernstein 
>   To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 9:38 PM
>   Subject: [digitalradio] Re: "Olivia" the Magic Mode for QRP and 
DX (Olivia 500/16)
> 
> 
>   Bonnie, why are you so persistently trying to relocate 20m 
Olivia 
>   operation from 14100-14110 to 14075-14078 ?
> 
>  73,
> 
>  Dave, AA6YQ
> 
>   --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" 
>wrote:
>   >
>   > Olivia is the excellent digital mode that works like magic for 
>   > QRP and DX. The sensitivity is so good, that a QSO can 100% 
print 
>   > when it is not possible to hear the other station below the 
noise, 
>   > nor see it on the waterfall display. PSK31 operators will be 
>   > really surprised by how Olivia cuts through noise and QRM.
>   > 
>   > Olivia has three popular flavors: 250Hz, 500Hz, and 1000Hz 
wide.
>   > 
>   > Operators who have tried Olivia before will notice increased 
>   > "Olivia 500/16" activity on 20 meters 14075.5 kHz to 14078.5 
kHz 
>   > (500Hz wide with 16 tones, prints at -13dB below noise) [S/N 
>   ratio]. 
>   > Try 14076.4 (center freq) for calling. 
>   > http://hflink.com/olivia/olivia500_16_20meters.jpg
>   > 
>   > Olivia information, Olivia software links, Olivia frequency 
chart,
>   > click here:
>   > http://hflink.com/olivia/
>   > 
>   > The Olivia Yahoo Group is called OLIVIADATA.
>   > Join the Olivia group:
>   > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oliviadata/
>   > 
>   > 73---Bonnie KQ6XA
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > .
>   >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   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  Craft hobby  Hobby and craft supply  
> 
> 
> ---
---
>   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 
> 
> a..  Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
>   
> b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   
> c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms 
of Service. 
> 
> 
> ---
---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
---
> 
> 
>   No virus found in this incoming message.
>   Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>   Version: 7.0.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/313 - Release Date: 
4/15/06
>






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/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: "Olivia" the Magic Mode for QRP and DX (Olivia 500/16)

[John Bradley]

ffor the same reason that I and others have moved 
down: why battle persistent QRM from the automatic pactor stations in the 
segment 14105 to 14110. 
 
I personally feel that I do not have to go up there 
and be QRM'd, then bitch about the QRM at great length from the nearest soap box 
It accomplishes nothing.
 
On the other hand a low power OLIVIA QSO in the 
14074 and up segment is an enjoyable pastime. And since there are also lots of 
other interesting modes down there, such as PAX, Hell etc, why not?
 
John
VE5MU
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave 
  Bernstein 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 9:38 
PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: "Olivia" the 
  Magic Mode for QRP and DX (Olivia 500/16)
  Bonnie, why are you so persistently trying to relocate 20m 
  Olivia operation from 14100-14110 to 14075-14078 ?   
  73,   Dave, AA6YQ--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, 
  "expeditionradio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> 
  Olivia is the excellent digital mode that works like magic for > QRP 
  and DX. The sensitivity is so good, that a QSO can 100% print > when it 
  is not possible to hear the other station below the noise, > nor see it 
  on the waterfall display. PSK31 operators will be > really surprised by 
  how Olivia cuts through noise and QRM.> > Olivia has three 
  popular flavors: 250Hz, 500Hz, and 1000Hz wide.> > Operators who 
  have tried Olivia before will notice increased > "Olivia 500/16" 
  activity on 20 meters 14075.5 kHz to 14078.5 kHz > (500Hz wide with 16 
  tones, prints at -13dB below noise) [S/N ratio]. > Try 14076.4 
  (center freq) for calling. > http://hflink.com/olivia/olivia500_16_20meters.jpg> 
  > Olivia information, Olivia software links, Olivia frequency 
  chart,> click here:> http://hflink.com/olivia/> 
  > The Olivia Yahoo Group is called OLIVIADATA.> Join the Olivia 
  group:> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oliviadata/> 
  > 73---Bonnie KQ6XA> > > > > 
  > > > > > > > > 
  > > > > > > > > 
  > > .>
  
  

  No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free 
  Edition.Version: 7.0.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/313 - Release Date: 
  4/15/06





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: "Olivia" the Magic Mode for QRP and DX (Olivia 500/16)

[Dave Bernstein]

Bonnie, why are you so persistently trying to relocate 20m Olivia 
operation from 14100-14110 to 14075-14078 ?

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Olivia is the excellent digital mode that works like magic for 
> QRP and DX. The sensitivity is so good, that a QSO can 100% print 
> when it is not possible to hear the other station below the noise, 
> nor see it on the waterfall display. PSK31 operators will be 
> really surprised by how Olivia cuts through noise and QRM.
> 
> Olivia has three popular flavors: 250Hz, 500Hz, and 1000Hz wide.
> 
> Operators who have tried Olivia before will notice increased 
> "Olivia 500/16" activity on 20 meters 14075.5 kHz to 14078.5 kHz 
> (500Hz wide with 16 tones, prints at -13dB below noise) [S/N 
ratio]. 
> Try 14076.4 (center freq) for calling. 
> http://hflink.com/olivia/olivia500_16_20meters.jpg
> 
> Olivia information, Olivia software links, Olivia frequency chart,
> click here:
> http://hflink.com/olivia/
> 
> The Olivia Yahoo Group is called OLIVIADATA.
> Join the Olivia group:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oliviadata/
> 
> 73---Bonnie KQ6XA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
>






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: Olivia 500/8 Center-of-Activity 14076kHz-14079kHz

[expeditionradio]

Hi Rick,

So far, it looks like the Olivia 500 Centre-of-Activity 
freqs at 14076-14079 have good support, and not much opposition.

If it continues well for Olivia, I will put up a web page on 
HFLINK's international bandplan website with other band charts 
of existing modes and trends for centres-of-activity 
for new and experimental digi modes. 
http://www.hflink.com/bandplans/

73---Bonnie KQ6XA

Original Message---

>> Olivia 500/8 (or 500/16) USB Dial Frequencies
>> 14075.5
>> 14076.0
>> 14076.5
>> 14077.0
>> 14077.5
>> 14078.0
>
>< 
> Bonnie, 
> What I would like to see are some practical bandplans that have a 
> recommended spot frequency for digital modes. We do have that 
> by default now on 20 meters for the .070 PSK31, and similar 
> areas on 40 and 80 meters.  
> ...
> If we had a spot frequency that was recommended for newer modes 
> that have not had a de facto "watering hole," like PSK31, then 
> we could start from there and if the frequency was busy, move up 
> to the next available slot. As it stands right now, there can be 
> Olivia, or Domino, or MFSK16, etc. over fairly wide areas and it 
> is very easy to miss a call. Since there are not that many stations 
> that work these modes, it would reduce the number of times that 
> calls are made with no response.
> ...
>
,





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/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia 500/8 Center-of-Activity 14076kHz-14079kHz proposed

[John Becker]

Thanks Dave,
But then again PKS of any type it not RTTY.
And when it comes to RTTY I'am a purist. Use
a TTY machine.



At 12:32 PM 2/20/06, you wrote:
>PSK63 is significantly faster than RTTY, and consumes less
>bandwidth. The PSKCORE engine can simultaneously decode all PSK63
>signals within a 3 khz band segment; coupled with callsign
>extraction logic, this makes for a powerful DXing and contesting
>tool.
>
>Why replace something like RTTY that has worked so well for so long
>of time? For the same reasons that we replace other things that have
>worked so well for a long time -- because we've found or developed
>something that is in all respects superior.
>
>"Replace" doesn't mean "eliminate", John. People still hunt game
>with bow and arrow, and fire up steam engines. If PSK63 did replace
>RTTY in DXing and contesting, there'd be RTTY QSOs for a long time
>to come. Humans are nostalgic.
>
>Since PSK63 hasn't replaced RTTY in DXing and contesting, its likely
>that PSK63 is not, in fact, superior to RTTY in all respects. I find
>RTTY to be more robust in the face of QRM and QRN. Also, I suspect
>that PSK63's speed sometimes works to its disadvantage: most ops
>can't type fast enough to keep up, and that makes some feel harried.
>
> 73,
>
>Dave, AA6YQ



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: Olivia 500/8 Center-of-Activity 14076kHz-14079kHz proposed

[Dave Bernstein]

PSK63 is significantly faster than RTTY, and consumes less 
bandwidth. The PSKCORE engine can simultaneously decode all PSK63 
signals within a 3 khz band segment; coupled with callsign 
extraction logic, this makes for a powerful DXing and contesting 
tool.

Why replace something like RTTY that has worked so well for so long 
of time? For the same reasons that we replace other things that have 
worked so well for a long time -- because we've found or developed 
something that is in all respects superior.

"Replace" doesn't mean "eliminate", John. People still hunt game 
with bow and arrow, and fire up steam engines. If PSK63 did replace 
RTTY in DXing and contesting, there'd be RTTY QSOs for a long time 
to come. Humans are nostalgic.

Since PSK63 hasn't replaced RTTY in DXing and contesting, its likely 
that PSK63 is not, in fact, superior to RTTY in all respects. I find 
RTTY to be more robust in the face of QRM and QRN. Also, I suspect 
that PSK63's speed sometimes works to its disadvantage: most ops 
can't type fast enough to keep up, and that makes some feel harried.

73,

   Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I did not know there was even an effort to replace RTTY.
> And that brings me to this question. Why replace something
> like RTTY that has worked so well for so long of time?
> 
> 
> At 11:01 AM 2/20/06, you wrote:
> >RTTY remains the digital-mode-of-choice for DXing, despite efforts
> >to replace it with PSK31 or PSK63. The MMTTY and MMVARI engines
> >enable freeware soundcard applications to perform well in this 
mode.
> >Given the continuing interest in DXing and Contesting, I doubt 
we'll
> >see any significant decline in RTTY.
> >
> >I do agree with the overall point of your post, Rick. No one owns 
a
> >frequency. Good judgement and basic manners go a long way...
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Dave, AA6YQ
> >
> >
> >--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U  wrote:
> > >
> > > Bonnie,
> > >
> > >  From my frequent monitoring, I would have to say that the only
> >really
> > > popular mode is PSK31. It is not uncommon now to have more 
PSK31
> >signals
> > > within a 2.3 KHz  passband, than even cw signals during a 
contest.
> >Like
> > > this weekend you might find 4 to 6 cw signals but you would 
find
> >up to
> > > 12 PSK31 signals in the "watering hole" on 20 meters.
> > >
> > >  From time to time there are other digital modes being used, of
> >course,
> > > and Olivia seems to be the third most common, (after RTTY
> >keyboarding),
> > > even though no where near the concentration of PSK31.
> > >
> > > What I would like to see are some practical bandplans that 
have a
> > > recommended spot frequency for digital modes. We do have that 
by
> >default
> > > now on 20 meters for the .070 PSK31, and similar areas on 40 
and
> >80
> > > meters. The RTTY operation is often about 10 KHz higher as you
> >point
> > > out. But except for contesting, RTTY is not as popular anymore 
as
> >other
> > > digital modes and probably will drop off even more as older 
hams
> >become SK.
> > >
> > > No one has any particular claim to any part of any band, other
> >than
> > > being able to work in the regulated areas for digital or for 
those
> >who
> > > follow bandplans, within the bandplan recommendation. If you 
go to
> >the
> > > ARRL site and look at their bandplan recommendations, one 
realizes
> >that
> > > they do not distinguish between digital modes except for the
> >automatic
> > > subband area that they call packet. Everything else is called 
RTTY.
> > >
> > > If we had a spot frequency that was recommended for newer modes
> >that
> > > have not had a de facto "watering hole," like PSK31, then we 
could
> >start
> > > from there and if the frequency was busy, move up to the next
> >available
> > > slot. As it stands right now, there can be Olivia, or Domino, 
or
> >MFSK16,
> > > etc. over fairly wide areas and it is very easy to miss a call.
> >Since
> > > there are not that many stations that work these modes, it 
would
> >reduce
> > > the number of times that calls are made with no response.
> > >
> > > Another consideration is the dearth of digital operation 
(except
> >for
> > > Pactor e-mail) on 30 meters. I have called many times on this 
band
> >and
> > > had no luck with other stations being around. If you have to 
make
> >a sked
> > > via the internet to even work a mode on a given band, that 
doesn't
> >say
> > > much about that mode:( But when I compared the recommendations
> >between
> > > say Region 1 and 2, they don't even agree on where data modes
> >should be
> > > operating on 30 meters. Region 1 is 10.140 and up and Region 2 
is
> >10.130
> > > to 10.140 if I read it correctly. Maybe it would be wise to 
have a
> > > domestic starting frequency and a DX starting frequency? For
> >example, I
> > > have often moved just above the commercial RTTY station near
> >10.130 and
> > > called. Maybe I should move up to 1

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia 500/8 Center-of-Activity 14076kHz-14079kHz proposed

[John Becker]

I did not know there was even an effort to replace RTTY.
And that brings me to this question. Why replace something
like RTTY that has worked so well for so long of time?


At 11:01 AM 2/20/06, you wrote:
>RTTY remains the digital-mode-of-choice for DXing, despite efforts
>to replace it with PSK31 or PSK63. The MMTTY and MMVARI engines
>enable freeware soundcard applications to perform well in this mode.
>Given the continuing interest in DXing and Contesting, I doubt we'll
>see any significant decline in RTTY.
>
>I do agree with the overall point of your post, Rick. No one owns a
>frequency. Good judgement and basic manners go a long way...
>
> 73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ
>
>
>--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Bonnie,
> >
> >  From my frequent monitoring, I would have to say that the only
>really
> > popular mode is PSK31. It is not uncommon now to have more PSK31
>signals
> > within a 2.3 KHz  passband, than even cw signals during a contest.
>Like
> > this weekend you might find 4 to 6 cw signals but you would find
>up to
> > 12 PSK31 signals in the "watering hole" on 20 meters.
> >
> >  From time to time there are other digital modes being used, of
>course,
> > and Olivia seems to be the third most common, (after RTTY
>keyboarding),
> > even though no where near the concentration of PSK31.
> >
> > What I would like to see are some practical bandplans that have a
> > recommended spot frequency for digital modes. We do have that by
>default
> > now on 20 meters for the .070 PSK31, and similar areas on 40 and
>80
> > meters. The RTTY operation is often about 10 KHz higher as you
>point
> > out. But except for contesting, RTTY is not as popular anymore as
>other
> > digital modes and probably will drop off even more as older hams
>become SK.
> >
> > No one has any particular claim to any part of any band, other
>than
> > being able to work in the regulated areas for digital or for those
>who
> > follow bandplans, within the bandplan recommendation. If you go to
>the
> > ARRL site and look at their bandplan recommendations, one realizes
>that
> > they do not distinguish between digital modes except for the
>automatic
> > subband area that they call packet. Everything else is called RTTY.
> >
> > If we had a spot frequency that was recommended for newer modes
>that
> > have not had a de facto "watering hole," like PSK31, then we could
>start
> > from there and if the frequency was busy, move up to the next
>available
> > slot. As it stands right now, there can be Olivia, or Domino, or
>MFSK16,
> > etc. over fairly wide areas and it is very easy to miss a call.
>Since
> > there are not that many stations that work these modes, it would
>reduce
> > the number of times that calls are made with no response.
> >
> > Another consideration is the dearth of digital operation (except
>for
> > Pactor e-mail) on 30 meters. I have called many times on this band
>and
> > had no luck with other stations being around. If you have to make
>a sked
> > via the internet to even work a mode on a given band, that doesn't
>say
> > much about that mode:( But when I compared the recommendations
>between
> > say Region 1 and 2, they don't even agree on where data modes
>should be
> > operating on 30 meters. Region 1 is 10.140 and up and Region 2 is
>10.130
> > to 10.140 if I read it correctly. Maybe it would be wise to have a
> > domestic starting frequency and a DX starting frequency? For
>example, I
> > have often moved just above the commercial RTTY station near
>10.130 and
> > called. Maybe I should move up to 10.140 dial frequency and then
>try
> > 10.141 or 10.141.5?
> >
> > In the final analysis, there are way too many new different
>digital
> > modes, used very infrequently, to have special subbands, but they
>could
> > have a recommended starting frequency for calling. Otherwise my
>rule of
> > thumb is to see where the last PSK31 station is operating and go
>just
> > above that and start calling with whatever mode de jour I happen
>to be
> > using at that time.
> >
> > Comments from others?
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Rick, KV9U
> >
> >
> >
> > expeditionradio wrote:
> >
> > > Olivia is now popular for digital keyboarding.
> > > Since Olivia has so many possible modes in it,
> > > there is a search for a 500Hz starting point.
> > >
> > > I propose that we, as a group of Olivia operators,
> > > use 14076kHz-14079kHz, as a centre-of-activity
> > > starting point for Olivia 500/8 .
> > >
> > > Olivia 500/8 (or 500/16) USB Dial Frequencies proposed:
> > > 14075.5
> > > 14076.0
> > > 14076.5
> > > 14077.0
> > > 14077.5
> > > 14078.0
> > >
> > > 14076-14079kHz is compatible and recommended by the IARU Region
> > > Bandplans for all regions of the world for (500Hz) digital
> > > keyboarding modes.
> > > It is compatible with the Amateur Radio rules of most countries.
> > > http://www.hflink.com/bandplans/
> > >
> > > Between the PSK activity (14070-14073) and RTTY activity
> > > (14080-14089),

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia 500/8 Center-of-Activity 14076kHz-14079kHz proposed

[Dave Bernstein]

RTTY remains the digital-mode-of-choice for DXing, despite efforts 
to replace it with PSK31 or PSK63. The MMTTY and MMVARI engines 
enable freeware soundcard applications to perform well in this mode. 
Given the continuing interest in DXing and Contesting, I doubt we'll 
see any significant decline in RTTY.

I do agree with the overall point of your post, Rick. No one owns a 
frequency. Good judgement and basic manners go a long way...

73,

Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bonnie,
> 
>  From my frequent monitoring, I would have to say that the only 
really 
> popular mode is PSK31. It is not uncommon now to have more PSK31 
signals 
> within a 2.3 KHz  passband, than even cw signals during a contest. 
Like 
> this weekend you might find 4 to 6 cw signals but you would find 
up to 
> 12 PSK31 signals in the "watering hole" on 20 meters.
> 
>  From time to time there are other digital modes being used, of 
course, 
> and Olivia seems to be the third most common, (after RTTY 
keyboarding), 
> even though no where near the concentration of PSK31.
> 
> What I would like to see are some practical bandplans that have a 
> recommended spot frequency for digital modes. We do have that by 
default 
> now on 20 meters for the .070 PSK31, and similar areas on 40 and 
80 
> meters. The RTTY operation is often about 10 KHz higher as you 
point 
> out. But except for contesting, RTTY is not as popular anymore as 
other 
> digital modes and probably will drop off even more as older hams 
become SK.
> 
> No one has any particular claim to any part of any band, other 
than 
> being able to work in the regulated areas for digital or for those 
who 
> follow bandplans, within the bandplan recommendation. If you go to 
the 
> ARRL site and look at their bandplan recommendations, one realizes 
that 
> they do not distinguish between digital modes except for the 
automatic 
> subband area that they call packet. Everything else is called RTTY.
> 
> If we had a spot frequency that was recommended for newer modes 
that 
> have not had a de facto "watering hole," like PSK31, then we could 
start 
> from there and if the frequency was busy, move up to the next 
available 
> slot. As it stands right now, there can be Olivia, or Domino, or 
MFSK16, 
> etc. over fairly wide areas and it is very easy to miss a call. 
Since 
> there are not that many stations that work these modes, it would 
reduce 
> the number of times that calls are made with no response.
> 
> Another consideration is the dearth of digital operation (except 
for 
> Pactor e-mail) on 30 meters. I have called many times on this band 
and 
> had no luck with other stations being around. If you have to make 
a sked 
> via the internet to even work a mode on a given band, that doesn't 
say 
> much about that mode:( But when I compared the recommendations 
between 
> say Region 1 and 2, they don't even agree on where data modes 
should be 
> operating on 30 meters. Region 1 is 10.140 and up and Region 2 is 
10.130 
> to 10.140 if I read it correctly. Maybe it would be wise to have a 
> domestic starting frequency and a DX starting frequency? For 
example, I 
> have often moved just above the commercial RTTY station near 
10.130 and 
> called. Maybe I should move up to 10.140 dial frequency and then 
try 
> 10.141 or 10.141.5?
> 
> In the final analysis, there are way too many new different 
digital 
> modes, used very infrequently, to have special subbands, but they 
could 
> have a recommended starting frequency for calling. Otherwise my 
rule of 
> thumb is to see where the last PSK31 station is operating and go 
just 
> above that and start calling with whatever mode de jour I happen 
to be 
> using at that time.
> 
> Comments from others?
> 
> 73,
> 
> Rick, KV9U
> 
> 
> 
> expeditionradio wrote:
> 
> > Olivia is now popular for digital keyboarding.
> > Since Olivia has so many possible modes in it,
> > there is a search for a 500Hz starting point.
> >
> > I propose that we, as a group of Olivia operators,
> > use 14076kHz-14079kHz, as a centre-of-activity
> > starting point for Olivia 500/8 .
> >
> > Olivia 500/8 (or 500/16) USB Dial Frequencies proposed:
> > 14075.5
> > 14076.0
> > 14076.5
> > 14077.0
> > 14077.5
> > 14078.0
> >
> > 14076-14079kHz is compatible and recommended by the IARU Region
> > Bandplans for all regions of the world for (500Hz) digital
> > keyboarding modes.
> > It is compatible with the Amateur Radio rules of most countries.
> > http://www.hflink.com/bandplans/
> >
> > Between the PSK activity (14070-14073) and RTTY activity
> > (14080-14089), it may attract new operators for Olivia QSOs.
> >
> > A few digital keyboarding modes share this frequency range,
> > and the keyboarding activity is very similar to Olivia, such as
> > MFSK, etc.
> >
> > Bonnie KQ6XA
> >
> >
> >
>







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

Other areas of interest:

The MixW 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: [olivia] New 500Hz Olivia Frequencies (14076-14080) ?

[KV9U]

Considering all the talk about how some countries have moved or are 
moving to bandwidth specified allocations on the amateur frequencies, it 
seems to me that we also have to make some adjustments in the way we 
view digital modes. If you have a narrow bandwidth mode (CW, PSK31, 
PSK63) and then some wider BW modes, (such as MFSK16, RTTY, Olivia, 
etc.) and then very wide BW modes (such as wide band Olivia, MT-63, 
etc.) the bandwidth will determine where you will operate. I question 
whether there should be sub - subbands for specific modes.

No person or mode has a right to a specific area. In fact, it seems to 
me that we are moving further away from that construct. For example, 
while I hear some RTTY in 14.080 to 14.090, it is not that much outside 
of contests. I do hear some wider modes, e.g, Olivia, MFSK16, etc., just 
below that area but there is no reason that the new modes would not be 
able to move into the "RTTY" area if they needed the space. This is 
based upon activity and not some guaranteed area based upon the mode.

By the same token, one would not want to intentionally move into what 
has been historically considered to be a specific mode area, unless you 
had to because of the pressure. Just like what happens during RTTY 
contests and the RTTY folks spread out, or during CW contests and the CW 
folks spread out well over the digital area like this weekend where you 
had CW stations operating in the 14.070 watering hole.

The other issue is this idea that there can be "channelized" activity on 
the amateur radio bands. There is no way for the average ham to keep 
this all straight. The only area that I try to keep away from is the 
NCDX beacon frequencies on each of the higher HF bands. But to even know 
what special interests might desire for a "channel," is nearly 
unknowable without some kind of chart in front of you at all times.

For example, I have no idea what frequency the selcal might be for ALE 
on any given band. As Bonnie has pointed out, they have even moved this 
frequency around!! The one exception is that they use LSB at the very 
top of the 30 meter band at 10.150. It is very unlikely that a casual 
operator would ever go up that far. But I was not even aware of that 
until a few weeks ago and I bet most hams are not even aware of it.

The amateur radio bands are simply not designed, nor are they 
appropriate, to use channelized operation. The exception is 60 meters 
with the mandatory channelized voice frequencies that don't even allow 
CW, nor digital modes at all! Not very useful for hams like me who only 
have one HF band that I can legally operate on analog voice and switch 
over to digital if I want to. (Unless I want to send detailed digital 
images due to the quirky and bizarre current rules here in the U.S.)

It might be possible to have a NCDX beacon/automatic station/channelized 
operation in one highly specific area, but having spot channel 
freqencies at other lcoations in a given band seems unworkable.

The one thing I do agree upon is the need for the three regions to try 
and work out similar bandplans.


Vilnis YL2KF wrote:

>
> Dear Bonnie, at all ,
>
> proposed by - We ???   at least I am not in this WE group 
> Please count me out - Vilnis Vosekalns , YL2KF .
> Using Olivia and all other modes too and do not see a reason to
> give such a drastic suggeastion to move down from 14.100 Khz with
> Olivia. This can start unnecessary frequency war with RTTY and MFSK16
> and so on. Do not know how to determine popular and unpopular mode but
> with full resposibility can say - Olivia is not popular mode.
> Segment 14.080 - 14.090 is mainly used for RTTY for years and still
> is popular mode. So, this segment is not proper place for experimental
> modes at all, as Olivia with all variations in bandwith is.
>
> With respect and love to all digital modes -
>
> YL2KF
>
>
> expeditionradio wrote:
>
> >I propose that we, as a group of Olivia operators, establish a
> >center-of-activity window for 500Hz Olivia operation,
> >between a USB dial frequency of 14076 and 14086kHz.
> >
> >To start, we could try 14076 to 14080.   
> > 
> >
> !!!
>
> >This is supported by national/international/IARU regional bandplans.
> >
> >The IARU Region 1 bandplan shows 500Hz bandwidth, non-automatic,
> >at 14070kHz to 14089kHz. This is the proper place for 500Hz Olivia.
> >
> >In both USA and IARU Region 1 bandplans: 
> >14101kHz to 14112kHz area is the only 20m segment available for
> >unattended or automatic data stations 2700Hz to operate.
> >We should avoid 14101kHz to 14112kHz whenever possible for keyboarding.
> >
> >In all cases, we should avoid Olivia use above 14108.5kHz.
> >Growing QRM from popular Olivia forced the International ALE
> >Network to move up from where it was for 5 years (14107.5kHz) to
> >14109.5kHz in year 2005. It is now sharing 14109.5 with MT63,
> >Packet, and Pactor operations. 14109.5kHz is the highest frequency
> >the ALE Network and the wideban

[digitalradio] Re: [olivia] New 500Hz Olivia Frequencies (14076-14080) ?

[Vilnis YL2KF]

Dear Bonnie, at all ,
 
proposed by - We ???   at least I am not in this WE group 
Please count me out - Vilnis Vosekalns , YL2KF .
Using Olivia and all other modes too and do not see a reason to
give such a drastic suggeastion to move down from 14.100 Khz with
Olivia. This can start unnecessary frequency war with RTTY and MFSK16
and so on. Do not know how to determine popular and unpopular mode but
with full resposibility can say - Olivia is not popular mode.
Segment 14.080 - 14.090 is mainly used for RTTY for years and still
is popular mode. So, this segment is not proper place for experimental
modes at all, as Olivia with all variations in bandwith is.

With respect and love to all digital modes -

YL2KF


expeditionradio wrote:

>I propose that we, as a group of Olivia operators, establish a
>center-of-activity window for 500Hz Olivia operation, 
>between a USB dial frequency of 14076 and 14086kHz.
>
>To start, we could try 14076 to 14080.
>  
>
 !!!

>This is supported by national/international/IARU regional bandplans.
>
>The IARU Region 1 bandplan shows 500Hz bandwidth, non-automatic,
>at 14070kHz to 14089kHz. This is the proper place for 500Hz Olivia. 
>
>In both USA and IARU Region 1 bandplans:  
>14101kHz to 14112kHz area is the only 20m segment available for
>unattended or automatic data stations 2700Hz to operate. 
>We should avoid 14101kHz to 14112kHz whenever possible for keyboarding.
>
>In all cases, we should avoid Olivia use above 14108.5kHz.
>Growing QRM from popular Olivia forced the International ALE
>Network to move up from where it was for 5 years (14107.5kHz) to
>14109.5kHz in year 2005. It is now sharing 14109.5 with MT63, 
>Packet, and Pactor operations. 14109.5kHz is the highest frequency 
>the ALE Network and the wideband automatic data stations can go. 
>
>To view a collection of IARU region bandplans and various national
>bandplans, click here:
>http://www.hflink.com/bandplans/
>
>73---Bonnie KQ6XA 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>  
>



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: Olivia Frequencies & 14080.0, etc

[Thomas Giella KN4LF]

Why avoid the 14080 kc RTTY scared cow 
frequency? We shouldn't and I say that as a big time RTTY 
operator! Everyone wants to stake out their own little turf frequencies 
according to the mode that "they" like to operate. We don't need to avoid use of 
ALE or MT63 turf frequencies either, because "no one" owns a frequency. 
The key is listening before you 
transmit no matter what the mode and frequency. It's just common sense and 
courtesy and a convention that PACTOR stations violate with 
impunity.
 
As far as Olivia what we need is a general 
consensus as to which submode that we will operate with "initially". PSK 
operators almost always begin with b/r of 31 and then shift to 63 if 
they want to, RTTY ops a 45.45 b/r. I know that I will always be able to 
establish initial contact with a PSK or RTTY operator.
 
In my personal experience with Olivia 500/8 
works pretty good for stateside QSO's when taking QRM, QRN and QSB into account. 
On DX paths 500/16 seems a pretty good choice. As my personal suggestion let's 
all start off with those sub modes when calling CQ, then once we make contact we 
can shift to whatever we want too whether it be 1000/32 or 250/8. It's a bummer 
to me when I can't answer an Olivia CQ because I can't figure out which sub 
mode the station is using.
 
And speaking of which mode is best under 
poor band conditions? Once again in my personal experience Olivia never out 
performs PSK31 or MFSK16 and PSK31 never outperforms MFSK16. Consistently MFSK16 
wins under poor band conditions of QRM, QRN and QSB both for stateside and 
DX.
 
Just my .02.
--... ...--,Thomas F. Giella, 
KN4LFLakeland, FL, USAGrid Square EL97AW[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
Proof Of God Through Science: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htmKN4LF 
Amateur & SWL Radio History: http://www.kn4lf.comKN4LF 160 Meter 
Propagation Theory Notes: http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf8.htm
 
 
 





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
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  

   
  







  
  
  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.



  







No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.11/264 - Release Date: 2/17/2006

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies

[Danny Douglas]

Title: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies





No such thing.  It was for something like 30 
or 60 minutes.
Think I got one back there somewhere.
Dnny
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA 
  
  To: 'digitalradio@yahoogroups.com' 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 9:09 
  AM
  Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia 
  frequencies
  
  Have you ever heard of the "Rag Chewer's Award?"  Given 
  to individuals who have a continuous 24 hour QSO? 
  Walt/K5YFW 
  -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  [mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com]On 
  Behalf Of Tim Gorman Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 
  3:44 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies 
  
  On Tuesday 24 January 2006 14:40, Steve Waterman, k4cjx 
  wrote: > Buddy, > 
  > Why is the Amateur service more a free e-mail system to 
  over-the-air > licensed operators any more than it 
  is a free phone system for those > who use phone? I 
  don't see anything in the 3rd party agreements about > mode of operation. > > > Steve, k4cjx > > 
  Please, Steve, tell me this is a joke? 
  If I spent 2 hours *every* night, 24/7, using a phone patch 
  into San Diego to talk to my sister you wouldn't see 
  anything wrong with that? How about if I spent *all 
  day* doing it - tying up 14275khz during the entire propagation 
  period? 
  Would that be an acceptable scenario for you? 
  How about if AOL starts recruiting amateur stations to provide 
  access links into their email system? Would that be ok 
  with you? Not paying the amateurs, mind you - just 
  recruiting them to offer branded access into AOL's email system. 
  Would that be an acceptable scenario for you? It isn't any 
  different than what your system is doing. 
  tim ab0wr 
  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/   
  
  
  

  No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free 
  Edition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.22/239 - Release Date: 
  1/24/2006





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
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  


Icom ham radio
  
  
Yaesu 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] Re: Olivia frequencies

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

Title: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies







Have you ever heard of the "Rag Chewer's Award?"  Given to individuals who have a continuous 24 hour QSO?


Walt/K5YFW


-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Tim Gorman
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 3:44 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies



On Tuesday 24 January 2006 14:40, Steve Waterman, k4cjx wrote:
> Buddy,
>
> Why is the Amateur service more a free e-mail system to over-the-air
> licensed operators any more than it is a free phone system for those
> who use phone? I don't see anything in the 3rd party agreements about
> mode of operation.
>
>
> Steve, k4cjx
>
>


Please, Steve, tell me this is a joke?


If I spent 2 hours *every* night, 24/7, using a phone patch into San Diego to 
talk to my sister you wouldn't see anything wrong with that? How about if I 
spent *all day* doing it - tying up 14275khz during the entire propagation 
period?


Would that be an acceptable scenario for you?


How about if AOL starts recruiting amateur stations to provide access links 
into their email system? Would that be ok with you? Not paying the amateurs, 
mind you - just recruiting them to offer branded access into AOL's email 
system.


Would that be an acceptable scenario for you? It isn't any different than what 
your system is doing.


tim ab0wr



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/
 








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
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  


Icom ham radio
  
  
Yaesu 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] Re: Olivia frequencies

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

Title: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies







I heard the same sort of comment when SSB was new.  "The SSB equipment cost so much that only rich hams can afford it."  Now everyone has "it".

My only problem with P3 or any new mode is that as hams we should try to exploit COTS hardware.  For example use of an extended PCI buss box or firewire, etc. and running 3 or 4 high-end sound cards or perhaps even a totally separate processor to produce new modes.  This rather than dedicated hardware.

As we grow in digital communications we ARE going to experience problems.  QRM, etc.  But we MUST NOT let that dissuade us from plowing forward in search of better digital technology.

Walt/K5YFW


-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of mulveyraa2
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 3:26 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies


[stuff deleted]
   Now, As a general comment...


   I started playing around with WinLink a few months ago.  When
investigating it, I found all of the standard arguments mentioned over
and over and over again.  But what struck me in particular, was that
many, if not most, of the P3/Winlink/Automated stations eventually
fell back on was, "You have to use expensive hardware to be able to
use it, and thus it's only used by rich RV'ers and yacht owners."








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
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  


Icom ham radio
  
  
Yaesu 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.



  

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies

[Dave Bernstein]

The ARRL's proposal, if adopted, will allow the broad deployment of 
semi-automatic operation without any requirement that semi-automatic 
stations implement "listen before transmit". This is clearly a fatal 
flaw. We must ensure that the FCC understands this flaw, and rejects 
the ARRL proposal.

I acknowledge your points regarding the efficient use of spectrum, 
but it would be far more difficult to build an open-and-shut case 
against the ARRL proposal on these grounds. Thus I will continue to 
focus my energy on highlighting the obvious and widely-acknowledged 
problem. 

Besides preventing the enactment of a very bad plan, defeating the 
ARRL proposal will have another benefit: it will make clear to ARRL 
leadership that successful development of a new allocation scheme 
requires broad engagement with American amateurs, a previously 
unthinkable process now made feasible by the internet and modern 
collaboration tools. That will be the time to take up the difficult 
issue of spectrum officiency.

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Tim Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 24 January 2006 21:46, Dave Bernstein wrote:
> > I disagree, Tim. In your scenario, Busy Channel Detection works
> > perfectly: it prevents the automatic station in St. Louis from
> > QRM'ing the west coast QSOs.
> >
> > Busy Channel Detection is not a solution to 
the "oversubscription"
> > problem, which will occur whether or not Busy Channel Detection 
is
> > in place.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> >   Dave, AA6YQ
> >
> 
> Busy detection will work to keep the automatic station from 
becoming a 
> nuisance by actually blocking other QSO's due to interference. 
> 
> It doesn't add anything to the system for traffic load carrying 
capacity. In 
> fact, it can make things much, much worse. This contributes 
negatively to the 
> spectrum efficiency metric of "time denied to other users" by 
greatly 
> extending the amount of time that specific piece of spectrum is 
tied up 
> trying to carry the traffic load.
> 
> It isn't an oversubscription problem, it is a system design 
problem. 
> 
> If the system is loaded with calls that are staggered, for 
instance, the busy 
> detection scheme can actually prevent the system from answering 
the first 
> caller because it will hear the second one on the frequency. If a 
third 
> station then begins calling, or a fourth ad infinitum, you can 
block the 
> channel up to where nothing gets accomplished until the calling 
stations all 
> go away because of propagation or the control operators decide to 
hang it up.
> 
> If you prevent this from happening by killing the busy detection 
once a 
> session is started then you open the system back up to being a bad 
neighbor 
> because a session could be started while the hub couldn't hear the 
second 
> side of an ongoing QSO on the same frequency. 
> 
> If the system were to be designed based on well-known traffic 
design rules, 
> ways to either block calls or queue calls would be implemented. 
This provides 
> a way to smooth the offered load and greatly enhance the traffic 
capacity of 
> the channel.
> 
> In fact, if you do a simple Erlang C analysis on the Winlink 
system using a 
> 30minute queue time, five 500hz channels on HF would have handled 
all the 
> Winlink traffic for the month of April, 2005. That's one 500hz 
channel each 
> on 80m, 40m, and 30m plus two 500hz channels on 20m. 
> 
> *THAT'S* what the FCC would say is a novel technical and 
operational approach 
> to mitigating interference on the amateur bands as well as 
maximizing 
> spectrum efficiency!
> 
> Any new modes being developed for use with such traffic carrying 
systems had 
> better be looking into traffic control mechanisms as well as 
channel busy 
> detection. Otherwise you might just find the problems caused by 
these systems 
> become worse instead of better.
> 
> tim ab0wr
>






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: Olivia frequencies

[Dave Bernstein]

Busy detection means determining whether intelligence is being 
conveyed anywhere within a specified range of frequencies -- 
specifically, the range of frequencies on which one intends to 
transmit. Accomplishing this does not require decoding that 
intelligence. It requires understanding the underlying modulation 
schemes used in both digital and analog communication, and 
implementing parallel detectors for these schemes using digital signal 
processing techniques.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 09:42 PM 1/24/06, you wrote:
> >The only automatic signals that should be confined to specified band
> >segments are those incapable of listening before transmitting. Since
> >stations would be free to upgrade to listen-before-transmit
> >protocols, there would be no "inflexibility" problem.
> 
> And just how would listen to every digital mode
> known to man?
>






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/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies

[Tim Gorman]

On Tuesday 24 January 2006 21:18, John Becker wrote:
> Most was for hams.
> ARRL teletype bulletins, for sale stuff,  some 3rd party
> NTS traffic. Just by you question I take it that you
> missed out on the packet or for that fact any of the
> TNC modes.
>

I couldn't afford the equipment back in the heyday. That doesn't mean I was 
unaware of what was going on.

It isn't any different today on Packet other than quantity. Same stuff.

The point *is* who the recipients were. Communications between amateur 
stations and control operators is provided for in the regulations with no 
restrictions. Communications between an amateur station/control operator and 
other non-ham parties *is* restricted to non-regular use by regulation.

tim ab0wr


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/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies

[Danny Douglas]

Most of the packet runners were on 2 meters.  In fact, our two meter
repeater for packet is still there, though I have no idea if anyone really
uses it.
We had a spotting network on it, plus we did send messages out to other
hams, buying, selling just advising etc.  When the internet became available
to us, we abandoned the packet network quickly.  There were intermediate
trunks, all on 2 Meters or 440, up and down the east coast, and it took some
little while for message to make it back and forth.  faster than the US
postatl service, but considerably slower than todays internet.  At that
point, my multimode data controller , 2 meter tranceiver  , and 2 meter amp
brick were all retired.  In came the sound card and new software packages
that can esentialy run rings around the old stuff.   Spot became just
minutes old, instead of the half hour lag in the old system.  Email exploded
on amateur radio groups such as the Yahoogroups, etc.  I still heard, and
hear the burp burp now and then and thank all the internet innovators that I
dont have to run 1200 baud packet now.  My new 400Kbps 800MHZ wireless
system runs rings around it, and lets my computer have more time to play at
ham radio.  Any DX for Olivia?
Danny

- Original Message - 
From: "F.R. Ashley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 12:13 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies


>
> >>
> >> Ten years ago, before Al Gore invented the internet I had 500 plus
> >> messages (email if you will) pass my packet BBS everyday.
> >> I don't recall all this type of talk back then.
>
> Thats just it, it was not email!  Besides, I do remember PLENTY of talk
> about the HF packet stations.The ARRL, in their infinite wisdom,
decided
> "packet frequencies" on 20 meters to dip down to 14.095, a long
established
> RTTY area.  So many packet stations set up shop that they migrated down as
> low as 14.085 or even lower.   Their never ending brrr went on
> incessantly, regardless if anyone was using the freq. or not.   And this
is
> exactly what will happen with the WinLink fiasco.
>
> 73 Buddy
> WB4M
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.22/238 - Release Date: 1/23/2006
>
>



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/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies

[F.R. Ashley]

>>
>> Ten years ago, before Al Gore invented the internet I had 500 plus
>> messages (email if you will) pass my packet BBS everyday.
>> I don't recall all this type of talk back then.

Thats just it, it was not email!  Besides, I do remember PLENTY of talk 
about the HF packet stations.The ARRL, in their infinite wisdom, decided 
"packet frequencies" on 20 meters to dip down to 14.095, a long established 
RTTY area.  So many packet stations set up shop that they migrated down as 
low as 14.085 or even lower.   Their never ending brrr went on 
incessantly, regardless if anyone was using the freq. or not.   And this is 
exactly what will happen with the WinLink fiasco.

73 Buddy
WB4M
>>
>> 



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/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies

[F.R. Ashley]

Amen to that Dave!

WB4M


> Yes, RM-11306 will definitely provide more space for semi-automatic 
> operation -- to the detriment of everyone else.
> 
>73,
> 
>Dave, AA6YQ
> 


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/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies

[Tim Gorman]

On Tuesday 24 January 2006 21:46, Dave Bernstein wrote:
> I disagree, Tim. In your scenario, Busy Channel Detection works
> perfectly: it prevents the automatic station in St. Louis from
> QRM'ing the west coast QSOs.
>
> Busy Channel Detection is not a solution to the "oversubscription"
> problem, which will occur whether or not Busy Channel Detection is
> in place.
>
> 73,
>
>   Dave, AA6YQ
>

Busy detection will work to keep the automatic station from becoming a 
nuisance by actually blocking other QSO's due to interference. 

It doesn't add anything to the system for traffic load carrying capacity. In 
fact, it can make things much, much worse. This contributes negatively to the 
spectrum efficiency metric of "time denied to other users" by greatly 
extending the amount of time that specific piece of spectrum is tied up 
trying to carry the traffic load.

It isn't an oversubscription problem, it is a system design problem. 

If the system is loaded with calls that are staggered, for instance, the busy 
detection scheme can actually prevent the system from answering the first 
caller because it will hear the second one on the frequency. If a third 
station then begins calling, or a fourth ad infinitum, you can block the 
channel up to where nothing gets accomplished until the calling stations all 
go away because of propagation or the control operators decide to hang it up.

If you prevent this from happening by killing the busy detection once a 
session is started then you open the system back up to being a bad neighbor 
because a session could be started while the hub couldn't hear the second 
side of an ongoing QSO on the same frequency. 

If the system were to be designed based on well-known traffic design rules, 
ways to either block calls or queue calls would be implemented. This provides 
a way to smooth the offered load and greatly enhance the traffic capacity of 
the channel.

In fact, if you do a simple Erlang C analysis on the Winlink system using a 
30minute queue time, five 500hz channels on HF would have handled all the 
Winlink traffic for the month of April, 2005. That's one 500hz channel each 
on 80m, 40m, and 30m plus two 500hz channels on 20m. 

*THAT'S* what the FCC would say is a novel technical and operational approach 
to mitigating interference on the amateur bands as well as maximizing 
spectrum efficiency!

Any new modes being developed for use with such traffic carrying systems had 
better be looking into traffic control mechanisms as well as channel busy 
detection. Otherwise you might just find the problems caused by these systems 
become worse instead of better.

tim ab0wr



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/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies

[kd4e]

For those who think that Ham radio spectrum is the only
way to connect radio to computer to internet to telephone
they are wrong.

DingoTel has an alternative:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007LQQUK/qid=1106972010/sr=11-1/ref=sr_11_1/103-1998810-3875851?n=172282

Lots cheaper ($29.), doesn't mess with our hobby, and
you don't even need to type -- it has voice recognition!

;-)

> At 10:20 AM 1/24/06, you wrote:
>> I just wish someone would explain to me why ham radio needs to be turned
>> into a free email system, especially for non-hams to use.   I fear this is
>> just the foot in the door..
>>
>> Buddy,
>> WB4M
> 
> Ten years ago, before Al Gore invented the internet I had 500 plus
> messages (email if you will) pass my packet BBS everyday.
> I don't recall all this type of talk back then.

-- 
~~
Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e

|_|___|_|
| | & | |
   {|
   /\  {|
  /  \ {|
 /\{|
/   @  \   {|
|   |~_||
|   -| ||
\ #   http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
  KD4E =
West Central Florida

~~~


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: Olivia frequencies

[Dave Bernstein]

Other than excluding commercial activities, I believe its a mistake 
to exclude some forms of communication, or to place arbitrary limits 
on equipment complexity or expense. The unintended consequences of 
such actions are almost always negative over the long term. We 
should encourage innovation by minimizing the constraints we impose. 

With decades of experience, we already know the minimal constraints:

1. no station should transmit on a frequency already occupied

2. each station must identify itself at east once every 10 minutes

The technology to implement #1 is available; it simply needs to be 
deployed. Regulations that encourage this deployment would 
effectively be self-sunsetting: once all protocols provide "listen-
before-transmit", the regulations would constrain no-one.

Given the "tower of Babel" situation we have with digital modes, #2 
needs some additional help. We need a common identification 
mechanism that enables any operator to identify a transmitted 
signal. As we've seen, the absence of such a mechanism makes self-
plociing problematic. To that end, we should require all digital 
mode stations -- attended or unattended -- to identify in CW at 
least once every 10 minutes. This can in most cases be automated; 
those with dedicated RTTY hardware will periodically need to reach 
for a key, but I doubt they will mind.

73,

   Dave, AA6YQ






--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "F.R. Ashley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> I just wish someone would explain to me why ham radio needs to be 
turned 
> into a free email system, especially for non-hams to use.   I fear 
this is 
> just the foot in the door..
> 
> Buddy,
> WB4M
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:10 AM
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies
> 
> 
> > Conversational QSOs don't necessarily turn around every 15 
seconds,
> > Steve. One could call QRL? and legitimately listen while the 
unheard
> > station is transmitting, and, hearing nothing, activate the 
remote
> > station.
> >
> > Yes, I have been on WinLink. In fact, you and I have exchanged 
email
> > messages via Winlink. Perhaps your database is not completely
> > accurate.
> >
> >   73,
> >
> >  Dave, AA6Q
> >
> >
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dave,
> >>
> >> You may also mention that that propagation moves in both
> > directions.
> >> If I am in one location, and here one of the two stations 
pulsing,
> > I
> >> would certainly know that there is another station on that
> > frequency.
> >> So, hearing only one half of the pulsing would certainly tip me
> > off
> >> that I may interfere if I call. So, what you describe is seldom
> > the
> >> case. More likely, the station calling just did not pay 
attention
> > to
> >> what was on frequency in the first place. Sort of like hearing a
> > DX
> >> station knowing that when you call, you will QRM. Some just go 
for
> >> it, anyway. But, this is not specific to local and remote
> > controlled
> >> stations, who do hear one of the two stations pulsing back and
> > forth.
> >>
> >> Ever been on Winlink 2000 to speak from experience?  I don't see
> > you
> >> in the database. Tell me when you were QRMed, and I will look in
> > the
> >> log files to verify it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Steve, k4cjx
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > If you can't hear them, likely they can't hear you either, 
John.
> >> The
> >> > simple case you cite is rarely a problem.
> >> >
> >> > With remotely-controlled automatic operation, the situation is
> > more
> >> > problematic. Say you're remotely controlling a station in 
Boston
> > on
> >> > a frequency already in use by a station in Kansas City. You
> > can't
> >> > hear the station in Kansas City, so you direct the 
automaticly-
> >> > controlled Boston station to proceed. When the Boston-based
> > station
> >> > transmits, it QRMs the station in Kansas City, who
> > (unfortunately)
> >> > hears the automatic station just as well as you do.
> >> >
> >> > 73,
> >> >
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies

[John Becker]

At 09:42 PM 1/24/06, you wrote:
>The only automatic signals that should be confined to specified band
>segments are those incapable of listening before transmitting. Since
>stations would be free to upgrade to listen-before-transmit
>protocols, there would be no "inflexibility" problem.

And just how would listen to every digital mode
known to man?





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/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies

[Dean Gibson AE7Q]

The FCC didn't think to limit us to more than 24 hours on the air per 
day, because they didn't consider automated, queued message systems.  
Even so, we have several examples of amateurs (or ex-amateurs) abusing 
the "band sharing" principle of amateur radio, by transmitting nearly 24 
hours per day, using pre-recorded messages.  Ex-KG6IRO and K1MAN come to 
mind.  It took about five years to get ex-KG6IRO shut down and in 
federal custody, and that was only due to conviction on non-amateur 
radio violations.  Who knows about K1MAN ...

All it takes is for a small percentage of amateurs to each decide they 
want to queue a significant number of messages.  If you have to be at 
the radio when you transmit, that's self limiting.  When you don't, the 
potential for abuse is great.

-- Dean.

On 2006-01-24 13:25, mulveyraa2 wrote:
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dean Gibson AE7Q <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> >
> > Volume of traffic is the issue.
> >
>
>Why is that an issue?  The last time I checked, the FCC doesn't
> limit us to the number of QSO's we have, or the time we can spend on
> the air.



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: Olivia frequencies

[Dave Bernstein]

I disagree, Tim. In your scenario, Busy Channel Detection works 
perfectly: it prevents the automatic station in St. Louis from 
QRM'ing the west coast QSOs.

Busy Channel Detection is not a solution to the "oversubscription" 
problem, which will occur whether or not Busy Channel Detection is 
in place.

73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Tim Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 24 January 2006 12:37, KV9U wrote:
> 
> >
> > -- the semi-automatic stations will be able to operate anyplace 
on the
> > bands that their BW permits. I personally oppose this and want 
all
> > stations that operate in any kind of automatic status to stay in 
a
> > subband unless they have adequate busy channel detect.
> 
> Because of the hidden transmitter effect, adequate busy channel 
detection will 
> probably not be sufficient to alleviate problems.
> 
> Scenario ---
> 
> A semi-automatic robot in St. Louis monitors 14200khz. On Sunday 
morning a 
> large number of hams in 6-land are in qso - hearing distance from 
St. Louis. 
> Because of its busy detection system, the robot in St. Louis will 
not answer 
> queries being made from end user clients around the east coast. 
> 
> This is what we used to call a "killer trunk" in the telecomm 
business. The 
> channel continually looks idle and originating call after 
originating call 
> gets hung up on the channel. 
> 
> By the time the 6-land qso's end, the channel will be so loaded 
with call 
> requests from the east coast that it is doubtful that they can all 
be 
> cleared. Many of these originating stations won't be able to hear 
each other 
> and they will just keep on initiating call after call, interfering 
with each 
> other at the robot site thus keeping the robot from establishing 
contact with 
> anyone. Since blocked calls are not cleared from this system, 
clearing the 
> backlog could take a very, very long time thus denying the 
frequency from 
> users for an extended period.
> 
> This is the reason that any kind of automatic operation needs to 
stay in a 
> sub-band, regardless of busy detection ability, until traffic 
controls 
> associated with efficient trunking can be implemented as well. 
These controls 
> would include:
> 
>  1. one frequency per hub station  (no killer trunks)
>  2. clearing of blocked calls (a short "channel busy" response to 
calling 
> stations, i.e. no killer trunks)
>  3. frequency sharing between hubs (good busy detection will 
advance this 
> capability)
>  4. Queued operation for store and forward systems rather then 
immediate 
> response operation. (separate data and control channels would help 
this)
> 
> Badly designed systems should not be rewarded with access to ever 
more 
> spectrum for use in horizontal spreading of ever more inefficient 
access 
> channels. 
> 
> Restriction to limited sub-bands *force* good system design and 
efficient use 
> of spectrum. We can artificially impose those sub-band limits or 
wait until 
> the system hits an un-imposed limit. Such un-imposed limit being 
band edges 
> or ModeWar/PowerWar limits set by competition with others. 
> 
> Neither of these un-imposed limits promote good spectrum 
efficiency for 
> amateur radio.
> 
> 
> >
> > -- wider BW modes (> 500 Hz) are not going to be able to operate 
where
> > they do now. They would be forced to move up.  Examples are above
> > 14.100, 7.100, 21.150, etc. So many of us who typically work 
within the
> > first 100 KHz of a given band are going to have to move whether 
we like
> > it or not. No one likes to give up priveleges, but this proposal 
is
> > going to cause it, should it go into effect.
> >
> > -- although the voice and wider digital frequencies are the same
> > subband, from what ARRL has said, there will still be a bandplan 
that
> > will likely keep the digital modes away from the analog voice 
modes. A
> > lot depends upon how well things work out. With the current spot 
digital
> > and analog image frequencies, along with analog voice, there 
does not
> > seem to be much of a problem. But there are only a few operators.
> >
> 
> A voluntary bandplan with no enforcement mechanism will not keep 
digital away 
> from analog unless the demand for spectrum by each (i.e. 
digital/analog) 
> allows it to happen. If the demand for spectrum by each is so low 
that such a 
> scenario will be played out then what is the driver for 
implementing some new 
> paradigm of regulation at this point in the space-time continuum? 
If digital 
> has enough room and analog has enough room then what will be 
accomplished by 
> the regulation change?
> 
> If they don't have enough room, then the regulation change won't 
help since it 
> doesn't widen the amateur bands. In fact, it exacerbates it by 
throwing 
> digital and analog of similar bandwidths together. 
> 
> If you've stayed with me so far or have jumped to the end, the 
bottom line of 
> all this is that neither of the proposals on the table at the

[digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies

[Dave Bernstein]

The only automatic signals that should be confined to specified band 
segments are those incapable of listening before transmitting. Since 
stations would be free to upgrade to listen-before-transmit 
protocols, there would be no "inflexibility" problem.

   73,

  Dave, AA6Q


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Rick, 
> 
> I have no objections to protocol or operation type placement, but 
I 
> am vigorously opposed to hard coded regulated sub-bands. "Semi-
> automatic (local or remote control" stations using P1 and P2 now 
> VOLUNTARILY operate below the RTTY VOLUNTARY portion of the bands. 
> They exclude the VOLUNTARY portion used by PSK, VOLUNTARILY. And, 
it 
> stays above the VOLUNTARILY placed CW segments. Remember, data can 
> legally move down to the bottom of the bands with the proper 
licensed 
> operator, but it doesn't. At least, not WL2K. The difference is 
that 
> with hard coded segments, there is no flexibility for future 
> protocols and systems. I, for one, am not smart enough to second 
> quess the future. I suspect it will be like the rest of the 
telecom 
> universe, "wired and wireless."
> 
> 
> Steve, k4cjx
> 
> 
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Based upon the proposal by ARRL to FCC, we can expect that if it 
is 
> > adopted, wider bandwidth signals will be forced to operate above 
> 14.100. 
> > The very place that a number of them operate right now. Your 
> > characterization of a station squatting in any their authorized 
> areas is 
> > very inappropriate, Steve. You have it exactly backwards. Anyone 
> can 
> > operate anyplace they choose in their authorized band of 
> frequencies, 
> > while the automatic operations must stay in their subband if 
fully 
> > automatic or if over 500 Hz. The downside of operating in the 
> current 
> > fully automatic/wide BW semi automatic subbands is that you are 
> likely 
> > to experience more interference since the automatic stations do  
> not 
> > have adequate carrier sensing for a busy channel (even though it 
is 
> > technically proven to work well with the past years development).
> > 
> > Why would anyone operate say around 14.108? For one thing, you 
have 
> to 
> > go where others are and if a DX station is calling up there, 
(like 
> a G 
> > station an hour or so ago, and you want to work them, you need 
to 
> be 
> > there. Same with many other stations in that part of the band. 
You 
> can 
> > not expect things to revolve around just the U.S.  We all know 
that 
> RF 
> > does not respect political boundaries.
> > 
> > If the ARRL recommended BW's and recommendations are adopted by 
the 
> FCC, 
> > several things are going to happen:
> > 
> > -- the semi-automatic stations will be able to operate anyplace 
on 
> the 
> > bands that their BW permits. I personally oppose this and want 
all 
> > stations that operate in any kind of automatic status to stay in 
a 
> > subband unless they have adequate busy channel detect.
> > 
> > -- wider BW modes (> 500 Hz) are not going to be able to operate 
> where 
> > they do now. They would be forced to move up.  Examples are 
above 
> > 14.100, 7.100, 21.150, etc. So many of us who typically work 
within 
> the 
> > first 100 KHz of a given band are going to have to move whether 
we 
> like 
> > it or not. No one likes to give up priveleges, but this proposal 
is 
> > going to cause it, should it go into effect.
> > 
> > -- although the voice and wider digital frequencies are the same 
> > subband, from what ARRL has said, there will still be a bandplan 
> that 
> > will likely keep the digital modes away from the analog voice 
> modes. A 
> > lot depends upon how well things work out. With the current spot 
> digital 
> > and analog image frequencies, along with analog voice, there 
does 
> not 
> > seem to be much of a problem. But there are only a few operators.
> > 
> > -- unless digital voice becomes quite a bit better in a 3.5 KHz 
BW, 
> I am 
> > skeptical that digital voice will ever be all that popular on 
HF. 
> The 
> > quality is nice if you have a good S/N ratio, but too often 
would 
> drop 
> > out and frustrate users.
> > 
> > -- Olivia is not necessarily a wide bandwidth mode. It does have 
> > narrower BW's since it can be adapted to conditions.
> > 
> > 73,
> > 
> > Rick, KV9U
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Steve Waterman, k4cjx wrote:
> > 
> > > The problem is not with PSK, the problem is with OLIVIA, whose 
> users
> > > have incorrectly determined that because their stations use a 
> 1000 Hz
> > > signal, that they must squat in the auto-forward Part 97.221 
sub-
> > > bands. In these sub-bands, the normal "listen before you 
transmit"
> > > criteria is a bit different since some of these stations are
> > > unattended and under fully-automatic control. My question is, 
why 
> are
> > > OLIVIA stations there?  This is just excellent verification 
that
> > > those us