[digitalradio] WinDRM Digital Voice
I had a couple QSO's on 20 meters with WinDRM but allot of QSB made things difficult. Anyone in the Northeast want to try WinDRM on 160 meters? I am starting to call cq on some nights at 9:00 pm Est. on 1.990. Since the band usually opens up well after sunset it may be a good place to get a small group of WinDRM users together for a little ragchewing.
Re: [digitalradio] WinDRM Digital Voice
Here in the northern midwest U.S., we have a great deal of QRN that begins in the early evening. It is not always easy to maintain comfortable analog voice communications with 100 watt stations during the summer months. When you use 160 what power levels are you running in order to keep the S/N ratio above the necessary S/N ratio plus enough reserve to prevent loss of data during the inevitable QSB? Are you using WinDRM for image data or voice or both? From listening to DV users on the higher bands, the mode is similar to the older AM operations where one station has the frequency for a while and then turns it over to another station. If two stations were transmitting at the same time and did not know it (doubling), you might not have any communications at all and this could go on for a while if there is a long monolog. It seems that DV will never be able to compete well with analog voice due to the limitations of physical science and the ability of analog to easily and very quickly switch between stations, similar to the QSK ability of CW which probably surpasses and other mode when you have savvy operators in a structured net environment. 73, Rick, KV9U jr1961bobo wrote: > I had a couple QSO's on 20 meters with WinDRM but allot of QSB made > things difficult. Anyone in the Northeast want to try WinDRM on 160 > meters? I am starting to call cq on some nights at 9:00 pm Est. on > 1.990. Since the band usually opens up well after sunset it may be a > good place to get a small group of WinDRM users together for a little > ragchewing. > > >
Re: [digitalradio] WinDRM Digital Voice
Couldn't DV include a automated brief pause every 1 or 2 min to check for doubling? It would be so brief as to be almost indiscernible to the op and would trigger a warning of some sort only if doubling (defined by certain parameters) were detected. WDYT? > From listening to DV users on the higher bands, the mode is similar to > the older AM operations where one station has the frequency for a while > and then turns it over to another station. If two stations were > transmitting at the same time and did not know it (doubling), you might > not have any communications at all and this could go on for a while if > there is a long monolog. > > It seems that DV will never be able to compete well with analog voice > due to the limitations of physical science and the ability of analog to > easily and very quickly switch between stations, similar to the QSK > ability of CW which probably surpasses and other mode when you have > savvy operators in a structured net environment. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U -- Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E Personal: http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html Ham QTH: http://mysite.verizon.net/kd4e/
Re: [digitalradio] WinDRM Digital Voice
I don't think it is needed. I have been on DV for 4 years and have never seen anyone talk for a min... it just don't happen on DV. It's just not a long winded mode. John, W0JAB At 06:59 PM 5/12/2007, you wrote: >Couldn't DV include a automated brief pause every >1 or 2 min to check for doubling? > >It would be so brief as to be almost indiscernible >to the op and would trigger a warning of some sort >only if doubling (defined by certain parameters) >were detected.
Re: [digitalradio] WinDRM Digital Voice
It would be difficult to pause without notice with DV due to the latency issue. This is one of the reasons that I do not expect DV to ever become all that popular on HF. And if there are attempts to improve the sensitivity and robustness, the latency would have to become even more noticeable since I doubt that there is any chance to have wider bandwidth modes such as you have on VHF and up with over 6 kHz wide signals. Latency can be acceptable for text modes, but much more problematic with voice. DV does not really lend itself to fast break in technique such as used on net operation or quick round tables where individuals make rapid back and forth comments. Without some major breakthrough, which at this time seems unlikely to contravene the laws of physics, HF DV seems destined as a niche player, similar to the way AM is still used. I have been getting a bit concerned with some of the strong statements being made lately by some of the more overzealous proponents of digital. Based upon the Dayton Hamvention Digital Forum presentations, it is getting a bit much, with claims that digital technology is destined to replace most analog technology. Because of the many downsides to digital technology, this is most unlikely on HF. It may eventually become more popular on VHF and higher frequencies due to the allowance of wider bandwidth modes. There are good uses for digital and there are good uses for analog and one is not always the best choice over the other. 73, Rick, KV9U kd4e wrote: > Couldn't DV include a automated brief pause every > 1 or 2 min to check for doubling? > > It would be so brief as to be almost indiscernible > to the op and would trigger a warning of some sort > only if doubling (defined by certain parameters) > were detected. > > WDYT? > >
Re: [digitalradio] WinDRM Digital Voice
At 11:47 AM 5/13/2007, you wrote in part: >This is one of the reasons that I do not expect DV to ever become >all that popular on HF. It is doing very well at this time.
