| |
G0SYR > MODEM 17.03.05 02:04l 37 Lines 1376 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 10914G0SYR
Read: GUEST OE3GMW DK3HG
Subj: Re: XR2211 performance
Path: DB0FHN<DB0MRW<DB0FOR<DB0SIF<DB0EA<DB0RES<ON0RET<SR1BSZ<SP7MGD<IZ0AWG<
IW8PGT<I0TVL<CX2SA<GB7YFS<GB7CIP<GB7CIP<GB7CIP
Sent: 050316/2353Z @:GB7CIP.#32.GBR.EU $:10914G0SYR
T:From: g0syr <g0syr@gb7cip.ampr.org>
T:Newsgroups: ampr.coms.modem
T:Message-Id: <9hauzuxgvxqe$.wkdccwib27pz.dlg@40tude.net>
Hi Andrew and all,
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:58:00 +0000, zl4ajs%zl4gq.#95.nzl.oc@gb7cip.ampr.org
wrote:
> From: ZL4AJS@ZL4GQ.#95.NZL.OC
> To : MODEM@WW
>
> I'm just new to packet and have built a modem from an XR2211/XR2206 pair.
> The modem needs almost full quieting to work on receive, and I would be
> interested to find out if anyone else gets better performance out of it.
> I live in the country about 70km from the BBS, signals are not always
> that good.
>
> Cheers, 73
> Andrew ZL4AJS@ZL4GQ.#95.NZL.OC
I would say yes you should get better performance than you are reporting.
I originally built the TNC200 kit from Paccom which used the XR2211/XR2206
pair. That TNC used an over complicated bandpass filter in front
of the XR2211 and the TNC performed better with the filter bypassed
and audio fed more or less unprocessed to XR2211.
I would say it performs at least as well as later designs and should
copy reasonably noisy signals. I'm still using the TNC200
every day and it's performed at least as well as any other other
TNC I've tried and better than many other designs.
--
73 de Bryan g0syr.ampr.org [ 44.131.244.60 ]
Amprnet mail g0syr@gb7cip.ampr.org
AX25 mail G0SYR@GB7CIP.#32.GBR.EU
Internet Mail g0syr@beeb.net
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
