| |
EB2DVY > PSK31 22.06.99 09:28l 416 Lines 17697 Bytes #-9991 (0) @ WW
BID : 73-EB2DVY
Read: OE3EPW OE1RRB GUEST
Subj: PSK31 Digest V1 #75
Path: OE1XAB<OE3XSR<OK0PPL<DB0RGB<DB0ABH<DB0ZKA<DB0KFB<HB9OS<HB9AJ<HB9PD<
HB9IAP<F6BIG<F1BBI<F5KPO<F5KAT<EA3D<EA2C<EA2URV
Sent: 990615/2231Z @:EA2URV.EABI.ESP.EU #:56065 [URV-ABRA Bilbao] $:73-EB2DVY
From: EB2DVY@EA2URV.EABI.ESP.EU
To : PSK31@WW.SYD.NSW.AUS.OC
de: Psk31 Digest <owner-psk31@aintel.bi.ehu.es>
Para: psk31-digest@aintel.bi.ehu.es <psk31-digest@aintel.bi.ehu.es>
Asunto: Psk31 Digest V1 #75
Fecha: martes 15 de junio de 1999 4:26
Psk31 Digest Tuesday, June 15 1999 Volume 01 : Number 075
In this issue:
Re: [psk31] Sound Card Common?
[psk31] Czech Windows Help File for Windows SB version 1.06
[psk31] "PSK9600" on VHF/UHF...use wider bandwidth?
Re: [psk31] "PSK9600" on VHF/UHF...use wider bandwidth?
Re: [psk31] "PSK9600" on VHF/UHF...use wider bandwidth?
RE: [psk31] Fw: psk31 on UHF/VHF
RE: [psk31] "PSK9600" on VHF/UHF...use wider bandwidth?
See the end of the digest for information about psk31-digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 23:46:36 -0400
From: "Robert Lay" <w9dmk@crosslink.net>
Subject: Re: [psk31] Sound Card Common?
Dear Dale,
You said:
>The other day, I was moving cables around and happened to unplug
>the audio to the soundcard. For some reason I was either
>transmitting or went to transmit on PSK31 at the time. I noticed
>that with the radio-to-soundcard audio unplugged, the
>soundcard-to-radio audio was inoperative. I then connected an
>alligator clipped jumper from the shield of the
>radio-to-soundcard plug (at the radio end) and bingo! there was
>PSK31 audio being transmitted. Disconnect the jumper and no
>transmit audio... I haven't taken a close look at the soundcard
>board, but could the audio out ground from the soundcard be
>floating and different than the mic-in ground on the soundcard?
Be advised that not all sound cards are the same, nor are all audio circuits in
transceivers the same. It would have been helpful to know the make and model of
the transceiver and the make and the model of the sound card.
I recently discovered a similar problem with the Creative Labs CT-4171 sound
cards. The Microphone input jack on those cards is a stereo jack even tho the
card accepts only monaural sound.
1) The microphone input jack is a 3 circuit or "stereo" jack.
2) The "tip" connection of your plug will connect to the sound card microphone
amplifier input terminal, which I will call terminal #1.
3) The "ring" connection of your plug will connect to the sound card microphone
amplifier input common, which I will call terminal #2.
4) The sleeve or ground connection of your plug will connect to the sound card
chassis ground, which is also chassis ground of the computer.
The important thing to note here is that if you are using a stereo (3 circuit)
plug to connect to microphone input on this type sound card, the common line for
audio in should be the "ring" circuit - not the shank or shield of your cabling.
The common line for the microphone amplifier input circuit must be properly
connected to the common line of your source - whatever that might be. The shield
of the cable, which is assumed to be connected to the shank of the plug will be
connected to sound card and computer chassis.
At this point you are probably wondering what that has to do with your problem.
My only point is that you really cannot take anything for granted. It would make
sense, when faced with your situation, to carefully ring out the cable that you
are using from sound card to transmitter input. It would also make sense to be
using a "three circuit" or "stereo" plug into the sound card's output jack.
Then, use that same cable to measure from the shield of the cable to PC chassis
to determine that there is or is not a chassis common connection to the shield.
Also measure to confirm that the sound card bracket is electrically common to
the PC chassis and the shield on the cable. (That is almost a guaranteed
connection since the screw holding the sound card to the back apron of the PC
would normally make a good electrical connection.)
I notice in your posting, above, that you say that you
<<connected an alligator clipped jumper from the shield of the
radio-to-soundcard plug (at the radio end) and .....>>
but you forgot to mention to what the other end of the jumper was connected.
That would have been very helpful in making a remote diagnosis. For example, it
would help to know if the jumper was connected to the radio's chassis, ground
lug, or to some pin in an accessory connector labeled "circuit ground", "circuit
common", or whatever.
Here's another relevant question. Were the PC power cord and the transceiver's
power cords both plugged into three connector wall outlets, and wouldn't such a
configuration guarantee a common connection between PC and radio - with or
without the audio cables? It certainly does in my shack!
73 de Bob, W9DMK, King George, VA
http://www.qsl.net/w9dmk
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/albania/784
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:43:05 +0200
From: Eduardo Jacob <jtpjatae@bicc00.bi.ehu.es>
Subject: [psk31] Czech Windows Help File for Windows SB version 1.06
There is a new Czech Windows Help File for Windows SB version 1.06 translated by Petr OK1FCJ and Pavle OK1DX . It's here:
ftp://det.bi.ehu.es/pub/ham/psk31/p31sbw106-cz.zip
http://www.kender.es/~edu/download/p31sbw106-cz.zip
Eduardo/EA2BAJ
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 08:45:03 -0500
From: John Chamberlain <chamber@cord.org>
Subject: [psk31] "PSK9600" on VHF/UHF...use wider bandwidth?
On Sun, 13 Jun 99 "nn7b" <nn7b@powernet.net> wrote:
> Has anyone used PSK31 on FM VHF/UHF? One of our
> local hams said he had used it across town on 2-watts FM
> and with a signal strength that was unintelligible for voice,
> he was getting solid error-free copy.
I wonder about using PSK on VHF/UHF FM... Seems unnecessary to be
constrained to 31 Hz on this mode. Why not have an enhanced PSK engine,
maybe call it "PSK9600," that would allow for much higher baudrate on
VHF/UHF FM? I think PSK9600 (at the higher baudrate) could give
traditional VHF/UHF packet a real run for its money!
I defer to the experience and wisdom of Peter, et. al. on the limitations
of the CPU, soundcard, etc. or if the program can even reasonably support a
higher throughput. But then, on the downside, how could we keep PSK9600
from being inappropriately used on the HF bands?
Any discussion?
73 de AC5CV
John Chamberlain (AC5CV@arrl.org)
Waco, TX EM11jm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:24:24 -0500
From: "George T. Baker" <w5yr@swbell.net>
Subject: Re: [psk31] "PSK9600" on VHF/UHF...use wider bandwidth?
When thinking about replacing VHF Packet, and other such digital modes,
maybe we need to keep in mind a fundamental difference between PSK31 and
the others: no error control. Peter intentionally omitted any error
control mechanism in recognition of PSK31's intended role as a
keyboard-to-keyboard QSO mode, not a file transfer mode. One of packet's
most powerful theoretical advantages is its "perfect copy" performance,
however poor the method may actually work out, particularly on a noisy,
fading HF path blessed with competing signals.
I don't doubt that for many purposes PSK XXX could functionally replace
packet, just as it seems to be gaining a foothold in replacing
conventional FSK RTTY, but I feel that we should not overlook a basic
difference in the design and performance of PSK31 and packet.
Also, I have reservations about the efficacy of PSK31 on the higher
frequencies, especially using FM. PSK31 derives many if not most of its
performance advantages over rtty, for example, because of the narrow
bandwidth, the linear modulation employed, and the unique
encoding/decoding scheme. While the latter could be translated to VHF, et
al, it seems to me that the other listed advantages would vanish
completely with the use of FM rather than SSB.
PSK31 doubtlessly will "work" on any communications link that can provide
the required minimum characteristics. Others have reported successful
operation over telephone and other voice-frequency circuits. I have
witnessed perfect print coming from a speaker to computer-mic circuit
with no connecting wires!
But, are there not other techniques which might do a better job for a
given link and purpose? VHF packet appears to do the job of file transfer
quite well over appropriate paths, while its predecessor - VHF RTTY - did
only a fair job and fell by the wayside when packet appeared in the
mid-80's. Packet, among other things, makes more effective use of the
available bandwidth on VHF both to increase data rate and to enhance link
efficiency (through error correction, etc.), while VHF RTTY does neither.
Tongue-in-cheek mode:
If PSK31 occupies a transmitted bandwidth of 31 Hz and PSK9600 would
occupy a transmitted bandwidth of 9600 Hz, it seems likely that the FCC
would eventually want to do something about all those digital signals
that were occupying over three times the legal bandwidth for HF. ;^)
End mode . . .
Good thoughts, John. Thanks for getting us started! More discussion?
72/73, George AMA 98452 R/C since 1964
Amateur Radio W5YR, in the 53rd year and it just keeps getting better!
AutoPOWER Systems, Fairview, TX (30 mi NE Dallas) Collin County
QRP-L QRP-ARCI FISTS NORCAL ZOMBIE ARS 10-X 33.2 N 96.6 W EM13RE
John Chamberlain wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Jun 99 "nn7b" <nn7b@powernet.net> wrote:
>
> > Has anyone used PSK31 on FM VHF/UHF? One of our
> > local hams said he had used it across town on 2-watts FM
> > and with a signal strength that was unintelligible for voice,
> > he was getting solid error-free copy.
>
> I wonder about using PSK on VHF/UHF FM... Seems unnecessary to be
> constrained to 31 Hz on this mode. Why not have an enhanced PSK engine,
> maybe call it "PSK9600," that would allow for much higher baudrate on
> VHF/UHF FM? I think PSK9600 (at the higher baudrate) could give
> traditional VHF/UHF packet a real run for its money!
>
> I defer to the experience and wisdom of Peter, et. al. on the limitations
> of the CPU, soundcard, etc. or if the program can even reasonably support a
> higher throughput. But then, on the downside, how could we keep PSK9600
> from being inappropriately used on the HF bands?
>
> Any discussion?
>
> 73 de AC5CV
> John Chamberlain (AC5CV@arrl.org)
> Waco, TX EM11jm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:04:55 -0500
From: Elaine and Ronald Waxman <erwax@interaccess.com>
Subject: Re: [psk31] "PSK9600" on VHF/UHF...use wider bandwidth?
My opinion is that wider bandwidth should be utilized mainly
to improve the Bit Error Rate (BER) and not for higher baud
rates. Although a wider bandwidth to increase the
communication rate might be accommodated in a keyboard to
keyboard contact, it should not exceed the typing rate of a
reasonably proficient typist.
Use of additional bandwidth to increase the BER might be of
value in certain types of VHF contacts. I fear that the
phase noise at this frequency might better be accomodated by
an entirely different modulation scheme.
de Ron W9KNB
John Chamberlain wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Jun 99 "nn7b" <nn7b@powernet.net> wrote:
>
> > Has anyone used PSK31 on FM VHF/UHF? One of our
> > local hams said he had used it across town on 2-watts FM
> > and with a signal strength that was unintelligible for voice,
> > he was getting solid error-free copy.
>
> I wonder about using PSK on VHF/UHF FM... Seems unnecessary to be
> constrained to 31 Hz on this mode. Why not have an enhanced PSK engine,
> maybe call it "PSK9600," that would allow for much higher baudrate on
> VHF/UHF FM? I think PSK9600 (at the higher baudrate) could give
> traditional VHF/UHF packet a real run for its money!
>
> I defer to the experience and wisdom of Peter, et. al. on the limitations
> of the CPU, soundcard, etc. or if the program can even reasonably support a
> higher throughput. But then, on the downside, how could we keep PSK9600
> from being inappropriately used on the HF bands?
>
> Any discussion?
>
> 73 de AC5CV
> John Chamberlain (AC5CV@arrl.org)
> Waco, TX EM11jm
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:10:19 -0500
From: "Dan W. Dooley" <dandooley@pipeline.com>
Subject: RE: [psk31] Fw: psk31 on UHF/VHF
The idea of trying PSK31 on FM for local work is most appealing. I have
some tech friends in the local area who do not have HF or even SSB
capability. Using FM only rigs is a good option. I also have an old Icom
22S (2 meter FM) which I would love to try it out on.
Any ideas of popular freqs. on 2 FM? Also, what technical hookup and sound
board adjustments should be considered?
Dan WB5TKA
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-psk31@aintel.bi.ehu.es
> [mailto:owner-psk31@aintel.bi.ehu.es]On Behalf Of Paul Webb
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 1999 2:27 AM
> To: Dale L. Martin; PSK31 Reflector
> Subject: Re: [psk31] Fw: psk31 on UHF/VHF
>
>
> Hi all/Dale
> Just a short note, i have used PSK31 on 2m FM with 100% success here in
> wolverhampton, havnt tried it over a bad path just to "local friend" a few
> miles a way but it worked fine.
> all the best
> Paul
> M0BMN
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dale L. Martin <kg5u@hal-pc.org>
> To: PSK31 Reflector <psk31@aintel.bi.ehu.es>
> Date: Sunday, June 13, 1999 7:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [psk31] Fw: psk31 on UHF/VHF
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:33:50 -0500
From: "Dan W. Dooley" <dandooley@pipeline.com>
Subject: RE: [psk31] "PSK9600" on VHF/UHF...use wider bandwidth?
Oh I wasn't thinking or suggesting PSK31 as a replacement mode. Simply as
an alternative. Not everyone has a TNC. I don't. But, I do have PSK31
software loaded on my computer and the computer hooked up to the radio. And,
for those who do not have it, it's downloadable for free. That's a strong
incentive for a budget conscious tech with only a 2 meter FM only rig and a
simple computer.
Of course, this radio can operate SSB, so from that standpoint alone, I
would have no reason to be interested in FM.
My interest is in gaining some adherents to the mode locally who do not have
SSB rigs and do not have HF privileges. Besides, is not PSK31 more of a
"conversational" mode, better suited to ragchewing than is Packet? Or am I
wrong on that one?
Technically, it may prove to be not worth pursuing, but, I'm just curious...
Dan WB5TKA
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-psk31@aintel.bi.ehu.es
> [mailto:owner-psk31@aintel.bi.ehu.es]On Behalf Of George T. Baker
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 1999 10:24 AM
> To: John Chamberlain
> Cc: PSK List
> Subject: Re: [psk31] "PSK9600" on VHF/UHF...use wider bandwidth?
>
>
> When thinking about replacing VHF Packet, and other such digital modes,
> maybe we need to keep in mind a fundamental difference between PSK31 and
> the others: no error control. Peter intentionally omitted any error
> control mechanism in recognition of PSK31's intended role as a
> keyboard-to-keyboard QSO mode, not a file transfer mode. One of packet's
> most powerful theoretical advantages is its "perfect copy" performance,
> however poor the method may actually work out, particularly on a noisy,
> fading HF path blessed with competing signals.
>
> I don't doubt that for many purposes PSK XXX could functionally replace
> packet, just as it seems to be gaining a foothold in replacing
> conventional FSK RTTY, but I feel that we should not overlook a basic
> difference in the design and performance of PSK31 and packet.
>
> Also, I have reservations about the efficacy of PSK31 on the higher
> frequencies, especially using FM. PSK31 derives many if not most of its
> performance advantages over rtty, for example, because of the narrow
> bandwidth, the linear modulation employed, and the unique
> encoding/decoding scheme. While the latter could be translated to VHF, et
> al, it seems to me that the other listed advantages would vanish
> completely with the use of FM rather than SSB.
>
> PSK31 doubtlessly will "work" on any communications link that can provide
> the required minimum characteristics. Others have reported successful
> operation over telephone and other voice-frequency circuits. I have
> witnessed perfect print coming from a speaker to computer-mic circuit
> with no connecting wires!
>
> But, are there not other techniques which might do a better job for a
> given link and purpose? VHF packet appears to do the job of file transfer
> quite well over appropriate paths, while its predecessor - VHF RTTY - did
> only a fair job and fell by the wayside when packet appeared in the
> mid-80's. Packet, among other things, makes more effective use of the
> available bandwidth on VHF both to increase data rate and to enhance link
> efficiency (through error correction, etc.), while VHF RTTY does neither.
>
> Tongue-in-cheek mode:
>
> If PSK31 occupies a transmitted bandwidth of 31 Hz and PSK9600 would
> occupy a transmitted bandwidth of 9600 Hz, it seems likely that the FCC
> would eventually want to do something about all those digital signals
> that were occupying over three times the legal bandwidth for HF. ;^)
>
> End mode . . .
>
> Good thoughts, John. Thanks for getting us started! More discussion?
>
> 72/73, George AMA 98452 R/C since 1964
>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
to unsuscribe from the list send to majordomo@aintel.bi.ehu.es a message
with a text line as follow: unsubscribe psk31 or unsubscribe psk31-digest
More instructions on PSK31 Webpage: http://aintel.bi.ehu.es/psk31.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
------------------------------
End of Psk31 Digest V1 #75
**************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
