| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 17.03.00 20:41l 203 Lines 7001 Bytes #-9544 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_74B
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/74B
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MRW<OK0PKL<OK0PPR<OK0PHL<OK0PBB<OK0PAB<HA5OB<HA3PG<
SV1AAW<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 000317/1517Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:57698 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g24
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA31555 ; Fri, 17 Mar 00 14:42:58 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.70/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00018396 ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:11:21 MET
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 00 18:07:28 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_74B>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 2000/74B
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> computer loose for the shack but it's not "one of my life objectives".
Brian, so you reject the notion that someone elses favorite mode should be
shoved down
your throat?
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 15:51:30 +0000
From: Charles H Brain <chbrain@nospam_dircon.co.uk>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
Brian Kelly wrote:
> Been there, done it. I'm passing the hat to get the pore guy an html
> generator to replace his iteration of Notepad for the Web. Care to
> contribute?
Don't bother it wouldn't do any good. I wouldn't know what good web page
design was even if it jumped up and bit me :-)
I am not trying to get people to use digital voice on H.F. I only used
H.F
because the guy I experiment with lives out of VHF range, so we had to
use
a 40M NVIS link instead. The system has pretty much the same performance
as the
39 tone modem used with ANDVT terminals.
The only reason I can see for H.F digital voice is for encryption and
frequency
hopping, which are not really relevant to Amateur Radio. Although I did
have an
interesting email telling me Amateurs should be using the same standard
that will
be used for H.F Broadcasting. Which appears to be some form of parallel
tone modem
with QAM and MP3 encoding.
- Charles
custodian of G4GUO
>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:09:38 -0600
From: W6RCecilA <Cecil.A.Moore@IEEE.org>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
Brian Kelly wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 04:19:55 -0600, Brian <burke1@icss.net> wrote:
> >Brian, so you reject the notion that someone elses favorite mode should be
shoved down
> >your throat?
> >
> Of course. This whole thread is about the "glories" of digital voice
> radio, I'm at best only mildly interested in the whole topic in both
> it's voice and teleprinting varieties. I'm getting leaned on for not
> being "excitd" about any of it, it ain't my thing and never will be my
> thing. I beep dx for the most part so forget "shoving the stuff down
> my throat" and I ain't making any bones about it. I'll try some
> digital radio. When I see some of these upcoming 5wpm digigeek
> Generals beep anybody I'll have more respect for what they actually
> know about HF ham radio.
Looks like you missed the point, Brian. Some people have the same
feelings toward CW that you have toward PSK31 and digital voice.
What is wrong with live and let live?
--
73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:56:24 -0600
From: W6RCecilA <Cecil.A.Moore@IEEE.org>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> I am a bit confused by this. Doesn't this radically blur the distinction
between
> digital and voice modes? It seems pretty silly to limit datarate for
digital
> communications when the data rate for phone isn't so limited. Imagine that
I
> used some form of steganographic encoding for voice that allowed me to
superimpose
> a data channel (perhaps as some kind of power control signal for instance).
Would
> that be in violation of FCC regulations?
It's not datarate per se, it's bandwidth. The bands are essentially
divided into narrow bandwidth modes and wide bandwidth modes.
--
73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 21:47:01 -0600
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
"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. Like
> by putting as much time and effort into talking the FCC into allowing
> the subject digital mode to be tested on HF as they have invested in
> the code test issue. Hot air being worth two cents per cubit and all
> that.
The only reason SSB is used today, is because SAC (Gen. Lemay)
adopted it, and rigs were manufactured in mass quantities. Else, Hams
would still be using AM and CW on HF.
This won't happen again, because military communications are mostly
incompatible, specialized, and not produced in mass quantities.
That means from here on out, all Amateur modes will probably be designed
by Amateurs. While CW and SSB will be around in a hundred years
(if just for nostalgia purposes), the digital voice vocoder will transform the
main operating mode, as Hams demand interference and propagation
adaptive algorithms. Remember, there's a few billion more people on the
planet since 1965, and crowding is going to get worse.
The time to start experimenting (the purpose of Ham radio) with vocoders
is now. Charles Brain has used the best chip there is, and a very
sophisticated
modem. I look forward to the articles.
Steve, K5OKC/AG
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 13:54:42 -0500
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv@bellsouth.net>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:27:35 -0800, Mark VandeWettering <markv@pixar.com>
wrote:
>Gary Coffman wrote:
>
>[ much trimmed ]
>
>> This is irrelevant to the current issue anyway, because we aren't talking
>> about a data emission, we're talking about a phone emission. It may,
>> however, be a source of confusion at the ARRL.
>>
>> I"ve cc'ed this post to w3kd as well.
>
>I am a bit confused by this. Doesn't this radically blur the distinction
between
>digital and voice modes? It seems pretty silly to limit datarate for digital
>communications when the data rate for phone isn't so limited. Imagine that I
>used some form of steganographic encoding for voice that allowed me to
superimpose
>a data channel (perhaps as some kind of power control signal for instance).
Would
>that be in violation of FCC regulations?
>
>73, Mark KF6KYI
Nobody ever said that the FCC regulations make sense. Though in a way
they do. The intent of the baud limitation for HF data transmissions is to
keep the occupied bandwidth small in order to be compatible with the other
users of those band segments (mostly CW operators). But that rationale
doesn't apply to phone transmissions. They're wide anyway. The FCC
has sensibly crafted 97.307(f)(1) to say that any phone emission must
not occupy a greater spectrum than A3A (6 kHz). Mention of baud in
that context would be irrelevant.
Besides, no one would really want to use a baud above about 50 on HF.
Otherwise skywave multipath kills you. That's why the high rate systems
operated on HF use multiple low baud carriers.
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_74C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
