On 2014-04-28 22:23, David Taylor wrote:
> On 29/04/2014 05:51, A C wrote:
> []
>> Followed the same instructions, no dice.
>
> .. and what are the messages in the Windows Event Log(s)?
>
The original error messages were:
A timeout was reached (3 milliseconds) while waiting for the Network
On 29/04/2014 05:51, A C wrote:
[]
Followed the same instructions, no dice.
.. and what are the messages in the Windows Event Log(s)?
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.o
On 2014-04-28 21:51, A C wrote:
> On 2014-04-28 21:24, David Taylor wrote:
>> On 29/04/2014 00:53, A C wrote:
>>> Has anyone recently (within the last few months) tried installing the
>>> Meinberg compiled ntpd on Win 7 successfully? I just built a new
>>> machine, put a clean copy of Win 7 on it,
On 2014-04-28 21:24, David Taylor wrote:
> On 29/04/2014 00:53, A C wrote:
>> Has anyone recently (within the last few months) tried installing the
>> Meinberg compiled ntpd on Win 7 successfully? I just built a new
>> machine, put a clean copy of Win 7 on it, tried to install ntpd and
>> ended up
For Rob, I would suggest that each TX have a GPS/PPS reference with sky
view, and that each PC was identical (e.g. all Raspberry Pi cards), and
then getting them synced to with 12 microseconds should be easy. I
achieve this even with indoor GPS puck antennas:
http://www.satsignal.eu/mrtg/pe
On 2014-04-28 18:37, Brian Inglis wrote:
> On 2014-04-28 17:53, A C wrote:
>> Has anyone recently (within the last few months) tried installing the
>> Meinberg compiled ntpd on Win 7 successfully? I just built a new
>> machine, put a clean copy of Win 7 on it, tried to install ntpd and
>> ended up
On 29/04/2014 00:53, A C wrote:
Has anyone recently (within the last few months) tried installing the
Meinberg compiled ntpd on Win 7 successfully? I just built a new
machine, put a clean copy of Win 7 on it, tried to install ntpd and
ended up with the "unable to start" error (number 1053). The
On 26/04/2014 05:05, Harlan Stenn wrote:
William Unruh writes:
[]
More recent ntpd combine server and client in one program.
Not sure when that was.
It's been the case for at least 20 years' time.
This is something that may be different in the upcoming rewrite.
H
I hope not, as it would m
On 2014-04-28 13:20, William Unruh wrote:
On 2014-04-28, Rob wrote:
William Unruh wrote:
All in all it is funny to read all the "that cannot be done"-like comments
by several persons on a ntp newsgroup while systems like this have been in
use since the seventies, and in fact have already been
On 2014-04-28 17:53, A C wrote:
Has anyone recently (within the last few months) tried installing the
Meinberg compiled ntpd on Win 7 successfully? I just built a new
machine, put a clean copy of Win 7 on it, tried to install ntpd and
ended up with the "unable to start" error (number 1053). The
Has anyone recently (within the last few months) tried installing the
Meinberg compiled ntpd on Win 7 successfully? I just built a new
machine, put a clean copy of Win 7 on it, tried to install ntpd and
ended up with the "unable to start" error (number 1053). The ntpd user
account was created, th
On 2014-04-28, Rob wrote:
> William Unruh wrote:
>>> All in all it is funny to read all the "that cannot be done"-like comments
>>> by several persons on a ntp newsgroup while systems like this have been in
>>> use since the seventies, and in fact have already been build by amateurs
>>> and are i
On 28/04/14 18:14, William Unruh wrote:
Not sure why they would need a lower cutoff, except that it would allow
the ancient telephone receivers to comply.
To give good carrier suppression on analogue carrier systems! I believe
that there is also a lot of energy below 300Hz that doesn't contri
On 04/28/2014 07:37 PM, Henry Hallam wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:14 AM, William Unruh wrote:
>> Not sure why they would need a lower cutoff, except that it would allow
>> the ancient telephone receivers to comply. Certainly one can make
>> cheap receivers now that go a lot lower than 300Hz
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:14 AM, William Unruh wrote:
> Not sure why they would need a lower cutoff, except that it would allow
> the ancient telephone receivers to comply. Certainly one can make
> cheap receivers now that go a lot lower than 300Hz.
Because 3.1 kHz of bandwidth is cheaper for th
On 2014-04-28, David Woolley wrote:
> On 28/04/14 16:19, William Unruh wrote:
>> For voice, the max frequency is something like 4KHz (eg telephone
>> quality) which is 250us (125us sampling) .
>
> Telephone quality is 3.1 kHz bandwidth from 300Hz to 3.4kHz, which
> allows for channel filters/real
William Unruh wrote:
>> All in all it is funny to read all the "that cannot be done"-like comments
>> by several persons on a ntp newsgroup while systems like this have been in
>> use since the seventies, and in fact have already been build by amateurs
>> and are in operation today. So I prefer t
On 28/04/14 16:19, William Unruh wrote:
For voice, the max frequency is something like 4KHz (eg telephone
quality) which is 250us (125us sampling) .
Telephone quality is 3.1 kHz bandwidth from 300Hz to 3.4kHz, which
allows for channel filters/realisable anti-aliasing filters.
I believe that
On 2014-04-28, Rob wrote:
> Jochen Bern wrote:
>> However, that *does* leave me wondering where the 12 us figure comes
>> into play. With the typical distances between 2m and even 70cm
>> repeaters, the mobile transceivers will see shifts *far* beyond that
>> between different repeaters' sig
David Woolley wrote:
> On 27/04/14 19:20, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> The goal is not to have 12us difference in arrival time, but to be
>>>within 12us for transmission time.
>
> But it is the difference in arrival time that will affect the quality of
> the audio that is heard, so it is t
William Unruh wrote:
> On 2014-04-27, Rob wrote:
>> j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
The listeners should enjoy a smooth reception while driving around.
So of course there should be no time lag between the modulation signals
of the different transmitters. Experts in the field tel
On 27/04/14 19:20, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
The goal is not to have 12us difference in arrival time, but to be
within 12us for transmission time.
But it is the difference in arrival time that will affect the quality of
the audio that is heard, so it is that which you would need to con
22 matches
Mail list logo
