RE: [digitalradio] PSK10 or MFSK16

[Dave Cole]

Hi Rick,

I just caught your second question...  Sorry for the delay...  I find that
MT-63 seems to work no matter where it is run.  We routinely run it on clear
frequencies, in the 4 Mhz. range and it works very well, under VERY poor
conditions.  WinDRM on the other hand is nice, but in a pinch I would rather
try MT-63, DRM needs a very good signal to really work well.

I have not used MFSK16 enough to be able to say if it is better or worse
yet, so I will reserve opinion until after I get some use under my belt.  I
would expect the lowest bandwidth would do the best in general, sometime if
you would like we can do some testing of the two modes...  I would LOVE to
see an ARQ version of MT-63!

Thanks,
Dave
NK7Z/NNN0RDO
http://www.nk7z.net

The truest measure of a society is how it treats its elderly, its pets, and
its prisoners






The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
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] PSK10 or MFSK16

[AA7ZC]

FWIWD

 

    We
in Oregon Army MARS have been looking at digital modes for some time. What we
have discovered is that MT63 is rapidly becoming the default mode for Navy and
Army MARS. As a result we are now running tests with MT63 to replace AMTOR with
Pactor as the backup. I hasten to say that our operating conditions do differ
from amateur service. While we have QRN problems, we do not usually have QRM
problems. In addition we have a requirement to be mixed mode on our nets. Since
we are channelized we have to program offsets for many digital modes that are
different from the SSB offsets. With MT63 the SSB and MT63 offsets are the same
so we can quickly switch between voice and digital using modern equipment like
the Tigertronics SL-1+. We also have a requirement for joint interoperability
and as I mentioned earlier, MT 63 seems the best choice so far as we work with
Navy and Army MARS in Region 10. There have been several meetings and many
e-mails on this subject recently.

 

    The
drawback to MT63 is there is no ARQ capability yet. Therefore, Army MARS will
not permit its use at the area gateway and above levels. However, we can refile
quickly into alternate acceptable digital modes such as Pactor and not every
station has to buy a Pactor TNC. We will also be experimenting with voice
recognition software since typing is problematic for some. 

 

Barry

AA7ZC

 









From: Mark Miller
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 2:19
PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] PSK10
or MFSK16



 

Rick,

Yes I probably did read more into that. 
Thanks for clarifying.  Your 
comments are interesting.

At 02:47 PM 4/4/2005, you wrote:
>when we have used it on really high QRN
nightime 80
>meters, for example, it would do OK with the
wide BW and slow data rate. But
>when you try some of the lower number of tones
(narrower BW) it could not
>perform. Even if it was still way wider than
MFSK16. Then when we switched
>back to using MFSK16 the signal worked very
well.

Olivia is more bandwidth efficient for the same
baud rate and bits per 
second with respect to MFSK16 (250 Hz vs. 384
Hz).  The control that you 
have with Oliva is the number of tones and the
bandwidth.  The number of 
tones does not affect the bandwidth.  The
bandwidth/number of tones 
determines the baud rate.  Olivia uses 64 bit
blocks so the seconds per 
block is 64/baud.  The number of tones determines
the bits per symbol so 
the character speed is seconds per block/bits per
symbol.  The interleaving 
depth is determined by the number of tones.

By lowering the number of tones in your example
above you were not 
affecting the bandwidth, you were increasing the
baud rate, reducing the 
interleaving depth and at the same time decreasing
the characters per 
second.  I am not surprised that performance
degraded.

Perhaps what you meant to say was that you
decreased the number of tones 
and decreased the bandwidth.  In that case
you could keep the baud rate the 
same and keep the characters per second about the
same.  The penalty is 
reduced interleaving which will degrade
performance.  But I don't think 
that is what you did because you mentioned a decrease
in "data rate" which 
I am interpreting as character speed.

MFSK16 has 16 tones and a bandwidth of 384
Hz.  The baud rate is 16 and the 
data rate is 62.5 bits per second.  To nearly
equal those parameters with 
Olivia you would choose 16 tones and 250
bandwidth.  Olivia is more 
bandwidth efficient for the same baud rate and
bits per second.  The 
character speed will be slower at 1 character per
second, but the 
performance should be better because of the more
robust FEC.  The same 
thing happens with QPSK31 vs. BPSK31 and PSK31FEC
vs. PSK31.  The penalty 
for increased robustness and unchanged bandwidth
is slower character speed.

73,

Mark N5RFX 




The K3UK
DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/









The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/









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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

RE: [digitalradio] PSK10 or MFSK16

[Mark Miller]

Rick,

Yes I probably did read more into that.  Thanks for clarifying.  Your 
comments are interesting.

At 02:47 PM 4/4/2005, you wrote:
>when we have used it on really high QRN nightime 80
>meters, for example, it would do OK with the wide BW and slow data rate. But
>when you try some of the lower number of tones (narrower BW) it could not
>perform. Even if it was still way wider than MFSK16. Then when we switched
>back to using MFSK16 the signal worked very well.

Olivia is more bandwidth efficient for the same baud rate and bits per 
second with respect to MFSK16 (250 Hz vs. 384 Hz).  The control that you 
have with Oliva is the number of tones and the bandwidth.  The number of 
tones does not affect the bandwidth.  The bandwidth/number of tones 
determines the baud rate.  Olivia uses 64 bit blocks so the seconds per 
block is 64/baud.  The number of tones determines the bits per symbol so 
the character speed is seconds per block/bits per symbol.  The interleaving 
depth is determined by the number of tones.

By lowering the number of tones in your example above you were not 
affecting the bandwidth, you were increasing the baud rate, reducing the 
interleaving depth and at the same time decreasing the characters per 
second.  I am not surprised that performance degraded.

Perhaps what you meant to say was that you decreased the number of tones 
and decreased the bandwidth.  In that case you could keep the baud rate the 
same and keep the characters per second about the same.  The penalty is 
reduced interleaving which will degrade performance.  But I don't think 
that is what you did because you mentioned a decrease in "data rate" which 
I am interpreting as character speed.

MFSK16 has 16 tones and a bandwidth of 384 Hz.  The baud rate is 16 and the 
data rate is 62.5 bits per second.  To nearly equal those parameters with 
Olivia you would choose 16 tones and 250 bandwidth.  Olivia is more 
bandwidth efficient for the same baud rate and bits per second.  The 
character speed will be slower at 1 character per second, but the 
performance should be better because of the more robust FEC.  The same 
thing happens with QPSK31 vs. BPSK31 and PSK31FEC vs. PSK31.  The penalty 
for increased robustness and unchanged bandwidth is slower character speed.

73,

Mark N5RFX 




The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
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] PSK10 or MFSK16

[Rick Williams]

Mark,

You are reading more than was said. Olivia, as I pointed out, is very wide
band and inappropriate for most contacts. That does not mean it is
inappropriate for any contacts.

If you have very difficult conditions, or "dead band syndrome" it can make
sense.

Having said that, when we have used it on really high QRN nightime 80
meters, for example, it would do OK with the wide BW and slow data rate. But
when you try some of the lower number of tones (narrower BW) it could not
perform. Even if it was still way wider than MFSK16. Then when we switched
back to using MFSK16 the signal worked very well.

Anything slower than the default is slower than is acceptable to some of us.
Even the default is very slow although some like that typing speed.

Thus far, I have not found any (keyboard) mode that can do better than
MFSK16 when you factor in the BW vs. throughput.

What I am hoping for is an ARQ sound card mode that can work well into the
noise. The only ARQ sound card mode with serious throughput is SCAMP as
deployed in the Winlink 2000 Packlink SCD program (beta), but it requires a
pretty good signal to work well. If the S/N ratio is high > 10 db, then it
screams.

We may eventually have an ARQ MT-63 mode. I know I would sure like to try
that out.

73,

Rick, KV9U



-Original Message-
From: Mark Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 5:06 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] PSK10 or MFSK16



At 10:36 AM 4/3/2005, Rick Williams wrote:
>Olivia can be OK, but it too wide a bandwidth and would often be
>inappropriate for most contacts.

Olivia is superior to all modes with respect to throughput and error free
text during weak signal conditions.  We only have power and bandwidth to
work with, so to keep the throughput high and errors low during difficult
conditions, Olivia allows the user to adjust the bandwidth of the
transmission.  All modes have their pros and cons, to dismiss Oliva by
saying it too wide a bandwidth is not doing it justice.


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 4/1/2005



The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
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] PSK10 or MFSK16

[Mark Miller]

Correction MFSK 16 uses 16ary FSK which allows more bits per symbol.  Word 
dislyxia.

73,

Mark N5RFX

At 10:29 AM 4/4/2005, you wrote:
>At 08:41 AM 4/4/2005, Rick Williams wrote:
> >Do you find that MT63 works better than MFSK16? Both simulation testing and
> >on the air testing has not seemed to show that result.
>
>
>What does better mean?  MT63 is superior under conditions of heavy fading
>when compared to MFSK16.  MFSK16 is superior under weak signal conditions
>when compared to MT63.  Whether a mode is "better" than another mode
>depends on the conditions, and the error and throughput results
>required.  I have not seen a simulator that can similate HF conditions more
>than AGWN and some very simple multipath delays.  Perhaps you can direct me
>to the test results that you are referring to.
>
>MFSK 16 uses 16ary FSK which allows more symbols per bit.  There is FEC and
>interleaving, but a compromise has to be made with respect to throughput
>and latency.  MT63 uses a modulation similar to OFDM which allows increased
>redundancy thereby providing robust FEC with less latency.  I think the
>biggest disadvantage to the "linear modes" (PSK, MT63, RDFT,  and WinDRM)
>is the crest factor issue.  With PSK it is not severe, but with the other
>modes I have listed it is severe and must be taken into account when
>setting up a transmitter.
>
>Olivia seems to have solved many of the OFDM issues and provides a very
>robust weak signal mode and one that can handle severe multipath with good
>throughput and reasonable latency.  Under less severe conditions Olivia's
>capabilities are not necessary, so a less robust mode can be used, with
>perhaps reduced bandwidth, if that is an issue. But hey, when conditions
>are good, RTTY with no error correction works great too.  Right now it is
>safe to say that one size does not fit all.
>
>73,
>
>Mark N5RFX




The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
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] PSK10 or MFSK16

[Mark Miller]

At 08:41 AM 4/4/2005, Rick Williams wrote:
>Do you find that MT63 works better than MFSK16? Both simulation testing and
>on the air testing has not seemed to show that result.


What does better mean?  MT63 is superior under conditions of heavy fading 
when compared to MFSK16.  MFSK16 is superior under weak signal conditions 
when compared to MT63.  Whether a mode is "better" than another mode 
depends on the conditions, and the error and throughput results 
required.  I have not seen a simulator that can similate HF conditions more 
than AGWN and some very simple multipath delays.  Perhaps you can direct me 
to the test results that you are referring to.

MFSK 16 uses 16ary FSK which allows more symbols per bit.  There is FEC and 
interleaving, but a compromise has to be made with respect to throughput 
and latency.  MT63 uses a modulation similar to OFDM which allows increased 
redundancy thereby providing robust FEC with less latency.  I think the 
biggest disadvantage to the "linear modes" (PSK, MT63, RDFT,  and WinDRM) 
is the crest factor issue.  With PSK it is not severe, but with the other 
modes I have listed it is severe and must be taken into account when 
setting up a transmitter.

Olivia seems to have solved many of the OFDM issues and provides a very 
robust weak signal mode and one that can handle severe multipath with good 
throughput and reasonable latency.  Under less severe conditions Olivia's 
capabilities are not necessary, so a less robust mode can be used, with 
perhaps reduced bandwidth, if that is an issue. But hey, when conditions 
are good, RTTY with no error correction works great too.  Right now it is 
safe to say that one size does not fit all.

73,

Mark N5RFX





The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
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] PSK10 or MFSK16

[Rick Williams]

Dave,

Do you find that MT63 works better than MFSK16? Both simulation testing and
on the air testing has not seemed to show that result. In fact, MT63 has
great difficulty with paths such as weak nighttime 80 meter signals. Have
others found this not to be true?

On WinDRM, don't you find you need a signal well above the noise, often
closer to about 10 db in order for it to work well?

73,

Rick, KV9U








-Original Message-
From: Dave Cole [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 10:17 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] PSK10 or MFSK16




Hi,

Try MT63...  Works very well in bad conditions, or WinDRM mode.

Thanks,
Dave
NK7Z/NNN0RDO
http://www.nk7z.net


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 4/1/2005



The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
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] PSK10 or MFSK16

[Mark Miller]

At 10:36 AM 4/3/2005, Rick Williams wrote:
>Olivia can be OK, but it too wide a bandwidth and would often be
>inappropriate for most contacts.

Olivia is superior to all modes with respect to throughput and error free 
text during weak signal conditions.  We only have power and bandwidth to 
work with, so to keep the throughput high and errors low during difficult 
conditions, Olivia allows the user to adjust the bandwidth of the 
transmission.  All modes have their pros and cons, to dismiss Oliva by 
saying it too wide a bandwidth is not doing it justice.

Please go to 
http://home.comcast.net/~mdmiller7/new_mfsk/tones_bw_baud_comp.htm to look 
at the varios bandwidths and character speeds.  At the bottom of the page 
click on all_possible to see a list of all possible tone and bandwidth 
combinations.  This is sorted by characters per second.  Click on all_us to 
show only the baud rates that are allowed in the U.S. in the 160 through 12 
meter bands.  Click on best to see a list that shows the most robust 
settings for the characters per second, based on the allowed baud rates in 
the U.S.  The column labeled mult is the "baud rate multiplier".  That is 
the multiplier that gives you bits per second when you multiply by the baud 
rate.  The last column is the resultant bits per second.

Info about Olivia can be found at 
http://homepage.sunrise.ch/mysunrise/jalocha/mfsk.html  including a draft 
specification at http://homepage.sunrise.ch/mysunrise/jalocha/mfsk_spec.html .

73,

Mark N5RFX



73,

Mark N5RFX

>




The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
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] PSK10 or MFSK16

[John Irwin]

You might try cw.>I have worked south pole from Wisconsin,no problem on 7.170 psk 31 reliable,repeatable.I have not used psk10.  On mfsk16 I like the music but seldom when I hear someone on this mode can I hear the station that he is working.
 
john kb9tcep4hr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello AllI looking for powerful digital mode than PSK31 for long distance, anybody work with PSK10 or MFSK16 and do you thinkthose is better  for long distance contact to compair to PSK31 ?73 The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
		Yahoo! Messenger 
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.


The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/









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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

RE: [digitalradio] PSK10 or MFSK16

[Dave Cole]

Hi,

Try MT63...  Works very well in bad conditions, or WinDRM mode.

Thanks,
Dave
NK7Z/NNN0RDO
http://www.nk7z.net

The truest measure of a society is how it treats its elderly, its pets, and
its prisoners

-Original Message-
From: ep4hr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 21:25
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] PSK10 or MFSK16





Hello All
I looking for powerful digital mode than PSK31 for long distance
 , anybody work with PSK10 or MFSK16 and do you think
 those is better  for long distance contact to compair to PSK31 ?
73








The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/

Yahoo! Groups Links











The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
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] PSK10 or MFSK16

[Kevin O.Rorke]

ep4hr wrote:

>
>
> Hello All
> I looking for powerful digital mode than PSK31 for long distance
> , anybody work with PSK10 or MFSK16 and do you think
> those is better  for long distance contact to compair to PSK31 ?
> 73
>
Yes MFSK has been proven beyond doubt to be much superior than psk over 
very long distances.

VK5OA

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
>
>
>
> 
> *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 the Yahoo! Terms of
>   Service .
>
>





The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
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] PSK10 or MFSK16

[Robert McGwier]

This is only because programmer's insist on programming using directx
or windows MME.  If they gave up on Win98 and used WDM-KS (Windows
Driver Model - Kernel Streaming), or restrict to cards that support ASIO 2.0
natively, they would achieve latency's under 5ms on 2 Ghz P4's for example.
There is a serious penalty to pay for supporting Win98 and Win ME and old
slow machines.  Until such time as developer's are using that it is seven
years after Win98 and it has been longer than that since the Pentium-MMX
came out, and that it is time to move on, we will be stuck with this
problem.
At Flex-Radio, they have basically said you cannot use your SDR-1000
software
as a CW radio with the software keyer if you do not want to or are
unable to pay the necessary penalties.  We are doing all of these software
defined radio methods (digital sound card programs are SDR's) and expecting
them to work by communicating their goods over tin cans and string.

ARQ is possible.  We have to say it is restricted to 21-st century sound
cards and operating systems.  I see no problem with developers adding such
modes and saying explicitly they will not work without the necessary
goodies to run them.

Bob
N4HY




The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
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] PSK10 or MFSK16

[F6CTE]

Hello,

PSK10 is very sensitive and it can be good for DX but only under good conditions. For DX, you can use MFSK16, MFSK8 and PSKFEC31 (and also PSK63F).

MFSK8 is very sensitive but difficult to tune. MFSK16 is also difficult to tune (but less than MFSK8) under weak conditions. PSKFEC31 is as easy to tune as PSK31 but it is much better because all bits are redundantly repeated (FEC mode)).

73
Patrick




The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/









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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

RE: [digitalradio] PSK10 or MFSK16

[Rick Williams]

My experience has been that MFSK16 is the best weak signal keyboard mode at
this time. Olivia can be OK, but it too wide a bandwidth and would often be
inappropriate for most contacts.

I wish there was a really good ARQ soundcard mode, but it is difficult for
programmers to do this with computers compared to dedicated TNC/modems.

73,

Rick, KV9U



-Original Message-
From: ep4hr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 11:25 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] PSK10 or MFSK16





Hello All
I looking for powerful digital mode than PSK31 for long distance
 , anybody work with PSK10 or MFSK16 and do you think
 those is better  for long distance contact to compair to PSK31 ?
73









--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 4/1/2005



The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
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/