| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 16.03.00 15:45l 179 Lines 7303 Bytes #-9546 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_73F
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/73F
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0BRI<DB0SM<PI8DAZ<PI8APD<PI8WNO<
PI8HGL<PE1MVX<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 000314/1704Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:55995 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g24
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA31394 ; Tue, 14 Mar 00 15:58:45 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.70/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00018379 ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:33:47 MET
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 00 19:27:00 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_73F>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 2000/73F
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
>> >
>> Went over my head - what have they cranked out?
>
>IMO, PACTOR II is the absolute best HF ham digital mode. My SCS
>PTC2e brings up PACTOR II mailboxes when I can't even hear the
>incoming signal.
>
10-4 . . . I didn't know that Pactor II came from Germany.
>
--
>73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
>
w3rv
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 11:02:45 -0600
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
> I don't have the time or inclination to tinker just for the sake of
tinkering,
> I don't have much respect for aimless techo diddling, For better or worse
> that's a pretty typical engineer's values.
If you don't have enough time to tinker, fine, you and the majority of most
Hams are operators, and want to know as much about your radio as you
do about your microwave oven. But it's the experimenters who are
producing your appliance. Do you think the DSP gadgets in your shiny
new rig were designed by Japanese engineers? No, they were designed
by Hams, and then incorporated, after being tested by many Hams who
do like to experiment, and are excellent beta testers.
> Nor do I have a problem with HF digital tinkering vs. serious
> development work as long as it doesn't screw up the band.
That's pretty much the ARRL attitude: status quo, autopilot on, damn the
icebergs. The iceberg in this case is the WARC. Americans are sitting
on their hands as the "new world order" is about to take the Monroe
Doctrine and shove it up your ass.
Steve
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 11:42:15 -0600
From: "Richard McCollum" <rmccoll@radiks.net>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
> >Brian Kelly wrote:
> >
> Yo, of course I'm not opposed to experimentation. I've previously
> stated that this new mode should be tried. I'll concede that my
> mindset is such that I personally can't be bothered with
> experimentation unless it has a basis in good physics and a visible
> bottom line and leads to meeting some practical need. I don't have the
> time or inclination to tinker just for the sake of tinkering, I don't
> have much respect for aimless techo diddling, For better or worse
> that's a pretty typical engineer's values
> >
> All I'm saying is that from the standpoint of rudimentary arithemetic
> and some wobbly assumptions this new mode doesn't appear to be much
> different from ssb wrt to spectral efficiency. Which is no biggie one
> way or another. Maybe it has advantages and/or attractions in other
> directions. Or weaknesses. Given that the obvious next step is to put
> it on the air and wring out V1.0 in the real world. Which is also
> standard engineer's "behavior". Bring it on, get it on the air, let's
> see if it can cut the mustard, I don't have a problem with that.
> >
> w3rv
1. SSB did not win on spectral efficiency, it won because QSOs were being
done on the high side of 20 when they were not being accomplished at 14.205
in Kilowatt Alley. SSB certainly meets the criteria for good physics and a
visible bottom line. It also wins because it will withstand mistuning,
selective fade, and a certain amount of QRM and still transmit intelligence
from one human mind to another. I recall hearing a fellow that no matter
how he was tuned sounded like Donald Duck with a headcold; when I met him at
the local club he still sounded like Donald Duck with a headcold. The
biggest challenge to digital phone is to stand non-zero-beat tuning and
partial clobbering.
2. The SSB revolution required the electronic community to learn and relearn
such concepts as linear amplification and such operating concepts as proper
levels for the task at hand. They have not been totally learned on the ham
bands, are an absolute disaster on CB, and from the postings plague digital
modes as well. Conceptually SSB is really great but it had its problems
until the supporting cast caught up. Having great lead singers for Aida is
OK but the opera needs elephants and spear carriers as well.
3. The SSB transceiver has become the basis for the shack for any number of
good reasons. SSB was good enough to make things like Collins KW1s into
boat anchors. The digital community apparently does not believe its
offerings can do that and limits itself to pushing audio thru mike jacks and
plugging decoders into speaker jacks with all of the resulting impedance
matching and level-control problems one can expect from the binder-twine
approach. If the proponents are not ready to build or buy equipment more
suitable to the purpose, why should I care?
4. It may well be that spectral efficiency can be obtained in other ways.
The Collins SSB system had competition from a DSB system from GE that could
not be made to work with tube-era technology. Ever tried to build a full
wave bridge with tube rectifiers? It has reared its head again with the
idea that even if it takes 6 kHz width itself the system allows overlapping
of stations and sorts them out via synchronous detection. It has not been
an outstanding success with analog but might be sex-on-a-stick for digital
modes. If you must experiment, do so but don't limit yourself going in to
SSB compatibility. At some point, as with software emulators, you do have
to do the real thing.
Sally forth -- and run the risk of coming in fifth. Of such is advancement
made, not talking about it. True FM was not feasible for many years; when
it was finally done it was found that the 6db per octave preemphasis of PM
was actually an improvement -- so now some stations use true FM with
artificial preemphasis. Such is life in the North Woods.
Dick McCollum N0BK
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 20:38:11 GMT
From: kelly@dvol.com (Brian Kelly)
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
On 12 Mar 2000 18:37:42 GMT, z005381b@bc.seflin.org (James Rosenthal)
wrote:
>Steve Sampson (ssampson@usa-site.net) wrote:
>: "Brian Kelly" wrote
>
>: > thankew. I gotta live long enough to see the collection of NCTA HF
>: > digital comms proponents in this NG get off their dead butts and make
>: > any new digital thingey actually happen anywhere on any ham band.
>
>Does PSK count?
>
>You can do it too. Just takes getting off YOUR lazy butt and putting
>forth some "effort" and "serious determination".
>
I'm very determined to beep dx and I work my butt off in the process.
I have every intention of giving PSK31 a spin as soon as I can break a
computer loose for the shack but it's not "one of my life objectives".
>
>: Like
>: > by putting as much time and effort into talking the FCC into allowing
>: > the subject digital mode to be tested on HF
>
>Does it even -have- to be approved by the FCC? The "code" will be
>published, the "code" is NOT used to encrypt what is being said, B/W is
>acceptable for the information, etc etc.
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_73G
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
