--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien wrote:
>
> 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 every
9:40 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>
, Andy obrien wrote:
>
> I'll agree with John, while many here will find ALE400 easy to
> tackle, many "a
t; John
>
> VE5MU
>
>
>
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Bill McLaughlin
> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:40 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400
>
>
>
This is where a combination of Patrick's RSID idea (also in fldigi and DM780
5.0 and PocketDigi) and SDR will help.
On July 1st I want to start writing my own Windows SDR console, initially for
SoftRock and later other SDR radios. Instead of monitoring ~3kHz as at present
we'll be able to monit
Say, John, you also use Pactor 2 and 3 which are always 100 baud PSK
modes. Do you find that these modes work through the ionospheric
conditions when sound card modes, even those with similar modes do not?
I find PSK to be rather poor at times here at 44 degrees N latitude,
unless you are close
Rick W escribió:
> Say, John, you also use Pactor 2 and 3 which are always 100 baud PSK
> modes.
Pactor and Pactor 2 can work at 200 baud. Buit it requires little
multipath and good SNR.
> Do you find that these modes work through the ionospheric
> conditions when sound card modes, even tho
