Re: [digitalradio] PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400
Jose, maybe Tony could devise some measurements to compare them. I'm not sure why, but on-air tests with ALE-400 seem to be a bit more robust than my path simulations indicate. Need to test this mode more. Tony -K2MO - Original Message - From: Jose A. Amador ama...@electrica.cujae.edu.cu To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 12:25 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400 I wonder what kind of investment is required. It has as many points as possible in common with sound card modes and only requires MultiPSK as terminal program. If I am not asking for a comparison between apples and oranges (I am not entirely convinced right now... 8-) ), maybe Tony could devise some measurements to compare them. 73, Jose, CO2JA --- Andy obrien wrote: While I have seen how well ALE 400 works, I am not convinced that it is worth the effort to invest in activity due to the lack of other hams using the mode. While ALE400 make sense to me, I can't see hams, en masse , switching to it. I still think that a better option would be the increased development of NBEMS PSK and MFSK with ARQ as implemented in FLDIGI. While perhaps not as robust as ALE 400 FAE , it is far more likely to be used by hams if there is more publicity about NBEMS. Andy K3UK VI Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación Energética 9 - 12 de Junio 2009, Palacio de las Convenciones ...Por una cultura energética sustentable www.ciercuba.com
Re: [digitalradio] PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400
Wouldn't the variability be due to not knowing the conditions we operate when on the air vs. the controlled and known conditions during the test? There are times that a given mode just can not work in a real world environment, even though you might be able to hear the signal just find. It just can not print well, and yet another mode that can handle the conditions of Doppler and ISI multipath can work FB. 73, Rick, KV9U Tony wrote: Jose, maybe Tony could devise some measurements to compare them. I'm not sure why, but on-air tests with ALE-400 seem to be a bit more robust than my path simulations indicate. Need to test this mode more. Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400
Rick wrote: Wouldn't the variability be due to not knowing the conditions we operate when on the air vs. the controlled and known conditions during the test? Yes, that's the problem Rick. It's difficult to mimic on-air conditions with a simulator and I doubt there's one capable of duplicating the variability of the real ionosphere. My gut feeling is that the mode prints closer to the noise floor than my pathsim sensitivity tests indicate. There's always some degree of ionospheric distortion on a real HF channel and seeing the mode print at what appeared to be a lower on-air signal-to-noise ratio vs. the simulators direct-path tests (no HF channel distortion) was impressive. This is all speculation on my part so we'll have to test some more. It probably won't prove anything, but it might be interesting to compare on-air recordings to the minimum signal-to-noise performance obtained from the simulator. Tony -K2MO --- Original Message - From: Rick W mrf...@frontiernet.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 5:34 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400 Wouldn't the variability be due to not knowing the conditions we operate when on the air vs. the controlled and known conditions during the test? There are times that a given mode just can not work in a real world environment, even though you might be able to hear the signal just find. It just can not print well, and yet another mode that can handle the conditions of Doppler and ISI multipath can work FB. 73, Rick, KV9U Tony wrote: Jose, maybe Tony could devise some measurements to compare them. I'm not sure why, but on-air tests with ALE-400 seem to be a bit more robust than my path simulations indicate. Need to test this mode more. Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400
As has been mentioned before, the best way to get the various flavours of ALE400 added to the various digital programs we use is to make source code available, failing that a good spec. Simon Brown, HB9DRV www.ham-radio-deluxe.com - Original Message - From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com I'll agree with John, while many here will find ALE400 easy to tackle, many average hams will be intimidated by an unfamiliar process. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Recommended digital mode software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk Logging Software: DXKeeper or Ham Radio Deluxe. Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [digitalradio] PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400
Simon; That said, what would it take to convince you and Patrick to work on a project,(besides time), hm? John VE5MU As has been mentioned before, the best way to get the various flavours of ALE400 added to the various digital programs we use is to make source code available, failing that a good spec. Simon Brown, HB9DRV www.ham-radio-deluxe.com
Re: [digitalradio] PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400
Hi, I'm working on at least a million lines of code in various Ham projects - the easiest way for me to add a new mode is if I have the source. Patrick writes in Pascal, myself in C++. To be honest I see Olivia and MT63 as the most reliable modes out there. Simon Brown, HB9DRV www.ham-radio-deluxe.com - Original Message - From: John Bradley jbrad...@sasktel.net That said, what would it take to convince you and Patrick to work on a project,(besides time), hm?
Re: [digitalradio] PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400
Hello John and all, I have suggested to Patrick in the past that he does an emcomm version of multipsk.. PSK,MFSK, ALE 400 and 141, and maybe Olivia. Not to remove these from the software but just take all the other options off the user interface.. hide the buttons of you wish. At the time, he was not interested. That said, what would it take to convince you and Patrick to work on a project,(besides time), hm? There is a lot of interesting projects but time is a rare ressource, that's the problem. About ALE400 source code: ALE400 is the same code as ALE with different parameters and a different way to estimate the BER. It seems that it exits some parts of ALE source available and, at least, someone (a French guy, sorry I forgot his call sign) is developping a C++ code for ALE, which will be available in the future. I don't want to issue my own ALE code (moreover, it would be difficult to extract as it is mixed with the rest). anyone monitoring the same band will see the RSID and will know the frequency (+/- 6Hz) and mode Note: the precision in frequency is +/-2.7 Hz. About the interface: I do it the way that corresponds to my needs (and I hope it corresponds to some other needs): * quick access to modes and options without going to menus, * except for some complex modes as Packet or ALE, all the options concerning a mode are directly available using buttons, * as I have no much memory (in my mind not in the PC), many buttons have a hint (i.e. after 1/2 s, mouse cursor over the button) which is, in fact, a sort of micro contextual help, * many buttons give access to a context sensitive help (i.e. mouse cursor over the button, clicking on the right button of the mouse calls the concerned help), Note: I do this way because, I noted that it is really complex to have a pertinent information, through the help, with professional softs as WORD. * clicking a mode button as ALE400 for example gives access to a default configuration, which must be sufficient for a first start, so, in fact, there is nothing to configure at the first step. There is just to choose the mode to work. Now each one must choose according to his/her needs. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: John Bradley To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:40 AM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400 you are right I do like multipsk and particularly ALE400. Works well in to the noise . I don't find it hard to use, but I have spent some time using the software and am not intimidated by the user interface. When I try to encourage others to try it out , their first reaction is that the software is too complex.. and they are thrown off by the interface. I would be reluctant to suggest this mode for emcomm use since the same operators would also be overcome by the interface, with the added stressors of whatever the incident is. Probably be OK for the first couple of operating periods but beyond that less experienced operators would be thrown into the mix. I have suggested to Patrick in the past that he does an emcomm version of multipsk.. PSK,MFSK, ALE 400 and 141, and maybe Olivia. Not to remove these from the software but just take all the other options off the user interface.. hide the buttons of you wish. At the time, he was not interested. John VE5MU
Re: [digitalradio] PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400
When the C++ code is available I'll take a look for sure :) I understand not shipping your code if it's mixed up elsewhere. Simon Brown, HB9DRV www.ham-radio-deluxe.com - Original Message - From: Patrick Lindecker ... is developping a C++ code for ALE, which will be available in the future.
Re: [digitalradio] PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400
I wonder what kind of investment is required. It has as many points as possible in common with sound card modes and only requires MultiPSK as terminal program. If I am not asking for a comparison between apples and oranges (I am not entirely convinced right now... 8-) ), maybe Tony could devise some measurements to compare them. 73, Jose, CO2JA --- Andy obrien wrote: While I have seen how well ALE 400 works, I am not convinced that it is worth the effort to invest in activity due to the lack of other hams using the mode. While ALE400 make sense to me, I can't see hams, en masse , switching to it. I still think that a better option would be the increased development of NBEMS PSK and MFSK with ARQ as implemented in FLDIGI. While perhaps not as robust as ALE 400 FAE , it is far more likely to be used by hams if there is more publicity about NBEMS. Andy K3UK VI Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación Energética 9 - 12 de Junio 2009, Palacio de las Convenciones ...Por una cultura energética sustentable www.ciercuba.com
RE: [digitalradio] PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400
Andy wrote: . I still think that a better option would be the increased development of NBEMS PSK and MFSK with ARQ as implemented in FLDIGI. While perhaps not as robust as ALE 400 FAE , it is far more likely to be used by hams if there is more publicity about NBEMS. I always look at these modes with a view of using them for emcomm traffic, and in doing so they have to be able to be used by inexperienced hams who might be on the second shift. operators only. The software has to be bomb proof and not require any extensive computer knowledge to run it. ALE400 is not the best mode for this, not because it is a poor mode, but because the user interface is very difficult to use and has turned off many potential operators. That said, Patrick likes the user interface the way it is, so it will likely stay that way. As a result , ALE400 and the other modes on multipsk will never be used by the mainstream ham community and cannot in good conscience be recommended for emcomm. Those modes are great too use if one has the patience to overcome in user interface. MFSK ARQ would have possibilities, but I think the standard for emcomm will remain winlink/winmor/paclink for now John VE5MU
Re: [digitalradio] PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400
John, ALE400 is not the best mode for this, not because it is a poor mode, but because the user interface is very difficult to use and has turned off many potential operators. Is it difficult to use? I have honestly not found this to be true. I agree it is very different than what someone who is used to classical Windows apps might expect but it is not difficult. In many ways it is easier and faster to switch modes options than DM780. And performance wise there is little that can hold a candle to it. I am sure the real reason people don't learn this fine program is that many of us these days have a market-driven preconception regarding aesthetics and anything not fitting in with that viewpoint is passed over quickly, especially if actual use of one's brain is required too. The same applies to the homebrew vs. appliance debate. I know you use MultiPSK John so the comments above are not directed at you (or anyone personally) but are just a general observation. I always look at these modes with a view of using them for emcomm traffic, and in doing so they have to be able to be used by inexperienced hams who might be on the second shift. operators only. The software has to be bomb proof and not require any extensive computer knowledge to run it. Isn't the real problem here the inexperienced hams? I understand that this is probably the reality you have to deal with these days but couldn't a greater focus on efficient digimode training in emcomm groups mitigate this problem? Sholto K7TMG John Bradley wrote: Andy wrote: . I still think that a better option would be the increased development of NBEMS PSK and MFSK with ARQ as implemented in FLDIGI. While perhaps not as robust as ALE 400 FAE , it is far more likely to be used by hams if there is more publicity about NBEMS. I always look at these modes with a view of using them for emcomm traffic, and in doing so they have to be able to be used by inexperienced hams who might be on the second shift. operators only. The software has to be bomb proof and not require any extensive computer knowledge to run it. ALE400 is not the best mode for this, not because it is a poor mode, but because the user interface is very difficult to use and has turned off many potential operators. That said, Patrick likes the user interface the way it is, so it will likely stay that way. As a result , ALE400 and the other modes on multipsk will never be used by the mainstream ham community and cannot in good conscience be recommended for emcomm. Those modes are great too use if one has the patience to overcome in user interface. MFSK ARQ would have possibilities, but I think the standard for emcomm will remain winlink/winmor/paclink for now John VE5MU
Re: [digitalradio] PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400
With any new mode or system, I tend to factor it with a view toward public service. But that does not mean it should not be used for what the majority of hams use day to day. Anything you are familiar with and use regularly will have much more value than something that is only used infrequently. Over the years, we went from mostly individual mode programs to multi-imode programs which kept adding new technology. At one time there was primarily one freeware program that did this the best and of course that was Multipsk. That is because Patrick developed a number of the modes himself and incorporated many modes under one roof. But they are only available on his program. If you want rudimentary rig control beyond PTT, (frequency, mode) you must run a program such as DXLab Commander. If you want a high end logging program you may want to run DXLab DXKeeper. I admit that it makes Multipsk fairly complicated to set up for many users. And most hams consider the interface to be very overwhelming and look toward alternatives. Currently, the most popular integrated multipurpose program is Ham Radio Deluxe/Digital Master 780. It is an incredibly sophisticated and has powerful integration with an imminently to be released improved logging system in addition to satellites and total rig control that no other freeware program can even slightly match. Needless to say, if a particular mode is not available in HRD/DM780, it will be difficult to compete with modes specific to one software. New modes have to have some exceptionally compelling new value or they may not succeed. Fldigi is an alternative program that is very clean, organized, and I actually prefer the most in terms of the user interface. It has its own rig control, but nothing like HRD. It has the advantage that it is being used as a central program to support NBEMS with the flarq program, and also PSKmail with its program. At the same time, this also makes it more complicated too, but more flexible. Similar to Multipsk, there are bridge programs that allow you to use high end logging programs such as DXLab DXKeeper as your central database. This is mandatory if you wish to log non digital contacts (SSB). Otherwise, fldigi's built-in log would probably be good enough for many of us. For general contacts you really want to choose one digital program if at all possible since switching between programs can be very difficult and inefficient due to various commands, icons, etc. being totally different in appearance and location. None are necessarily better than another, but you do need to get used to them. After a lot of comparisons, especially on faster machines (which you need particularly for HRD/DM780), I don't find much decoding difference as I once thought I did on a lesser computer. Winlink 2000, even with a sound card design, only handles e-mail at this point. That is something that might be useful for public service, but on a very small scale compared to point to point communications that is typically used to route local and regional traffic. 73, Rick, KV9U Moderator, HFDEC (Hams for Disaster and Emergency Communications) yahoogroup Note: this group was formed to take discussion of public service off of the digitalradio group due to complaints of too much discussion of public service issues on digitalradio, HI. John Bradley wrote: Andy wrote: “. I still think that a better option would be the increased development of NBEMS PSK and MFSK with ARQ as implemented in FLDIGI. While perhaps not as robust as ALE 400 FAE , it is far more likely to be used by hams if there is more publicity about NBEMS.” I always look at these modes with a view of using them for emcomm traffic, and in doing so they have to be able to be used by inexperienced hams who might be on the second shift… operators only. The software has to be “bomb proof” and not require any extensive computer knowledge to run it. ALE400 is not the best mode for this, not because it is a poor mode, but because the user interface is very difficult to use and has turned off many potential operators. That said, Patrick likes the user interface the way it is, so it will likely stay that way. As a result , ALE400 and the other modes on multipsk will never be used by the mainstream ham community and cannot in good conscience be recommended for emcomm. Those modes are great too use if one has the patience to overcome in user interface. MFSK ARQ would have possibilities, but I think the standard for emcomm will remain winlink/winmor/paclink for now John VE5MU Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Recommended digital mode software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk Logging Software: DXKeeper or Ham Radio Deluxe. Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to:
RE: [digitalradio] PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400
you are right I do like multipsk and particularly ALE400. Works well in to the noise . I don't find it hard to use, but I have spent some time using the software and am not intimidated by the user interface. When I try to encourage others to try it out , their first reaction is that the software is too complex.. and they are thrown off by the interface. I would be reluctant to suggest this mode for emcomm use since the same operators would also be overcome by the interface, with the added stressors of whatever the incident is. Probably be OK for the first couple of operating periods but beyond that less experienced operators would be thrown into the mix. I have suggested to Patrick in the past that he does an emcomm version of multipsk.. PSK,MFSK, ALE 400 and 141, and maybe Olivia. Not to remove these from the software but just take all the other options off the user interface.. hide the buttons of you wish. At the time, he was not interested. John VE5MU
Re: [digitalradio] PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400
I'll agree with John, while many here will find ALE400 easy to tackle, many average hams will be intimidated by an unfamiliar process. That is why Skip Teller's concepts behind NBEMS are good, using mode that many hams use everyday. Andy K3UK On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:40 PM, John Bradley jbrad...@sasktel.net wrote: you are right I do like multipsk and particularly ALE400. Works well in to the noise . I don’t find it hard to use, but I have spent some time using the software and am not intimidated by the user interface. When I try to encourage others to try it out , their first reaction is that the software is too complex…. and they are thrown off by the interface. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Recommended digital mode software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk Logging Software: DXKeeper or Ham Radio Deluxe. Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
