I am on MT63 right now calling CQ on 7080 kHz USB
I am sending CQ every 3 minutes or so.

If I don't contact anyone, I will leave the rig on there
listening all day and see what else comes in.

73 and see you all on MT63 - Bry, AF4K

OK no takers on 40m MT63
I have decided to move to 14109.5

Hope to see someone there - preferably a rare DX country!

73 - Bry

--- In MT63@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Carling" <bcarling@c...> wrote:
> OK no takers on 40m MT63
> I have decided to move to 14109.5
>
> Hope to see someone there - preferably a rare DX country!
>
> 73 - Bry

Hi Bry,  I had my rig on in the afternoon on Sunday, and only saw one
or two stations on the calling frequency on 20. I don't recall seeing
yours.

We have got to do something to get more people interested in the
mode!  I really hope to hear you on again soon.  In the meantime,
don't give up.  There are stations out there.  It just seems that
psk31 has the spotlight right now!

73 from Jim AG3Y

Hi Folks,
              I would like a contact with you guys across the pond if we
can arrange a time to suit.

73 de Martin, G4FFC.

Hello,

this Nino IZ8BLY back again on the list :-)

For those interested, I've released a new version of the MT63
program that works also under Windows XP. You can find the installation file
on this mailing list web site under the section "Files".

The only new thing is the new XP look and the possibility to choose the
soundcard (both transmit and receive). I've also tried to eliminate the
"division by zero" error but was unable to locate it. Please
report to me if you still experience this bug.

-Nino
IZ8BLY

Hello the group

I am having a problem with the UTC time in all of Nino's programs.
It shows the correct time in the task bar at the bottom, however when
I sent the UTC time in a macro it is 12 hours off, If I log the
contact in the program is is only 6 hours off. Does anyone else see
this? I have checked in the .ini files and have not seen anything
that could cause this problem.

Joe Ivey
W4JSI

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Nino Porcino wrote:

> For those interested, I've released a new version of the MT63 program
> that works also under Windows XP. You can find the installation file on
> this mailing list web site under the section "Files".

I found the new Stream MFSK version but not the MT63 - did I miss it? :-)


later...
jsb

N1SU

What frequency was this on?

I'm VERY encouraged to know that the MARS folks are
catching on to this excellent mode!

See you all on 14.1095

By the way I have a LOUD broadcast station birdie that
has now appeared on 14109.5 - Ugh!

Bry, AF4K
Sanford, FL

On 6 Feb 2004 at 20:23, Francisco O Acosta wrote:

>
> ALL THIS TRAFFIC WAS RECEIVED BY MixW2 (MT63 MODE) Today on the PA1C
> net.
>
>
> DE NNN0ASA 075
> R 311800Z MAR 03
> FM CHNAVMARCORMARS WILLIAMSBURG VA
> TO ALNAVMARCORMARS
> INFO ZEN/HQ USASC FT HUACHUCA AZ//AFSC-OPE-MA//
> ZEN/HQ AFCA SCOTT AFB IL//GCGS/MARS//
> BT
> UNCLAS
> SUBJ: CHNAVMARCORMARS BCST 08-03 - SOUND CARD FREQUENCIES
> 1. THE USE OF SOUND CARD MODES IS EXPANDING RAPIDLY THROUGHOUT
> NAVMARCORMARS. THESE MODES ARE PROVING TO BE EFFICIENT IN MESSAGE
> HANDLING AND INEXPENSIVE TO OPERATE, ELIMINATING THE NEED FOR AN
> EXPENSIVE MULTI-MODE TERMINAL NODE CONTROLLER. SOME REGIONS AND STATES
> HAVE ESTABLISHED NETS FOR EXPERIMENTATION WITH THESE MODES. 2. TO MAKE
> THESE MODES AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS IN ALL AREAS, REGIONS AND STATES,THE
> FOLLOWING FREQUENCIES ARE AVAILABLE TO ALL STATIONS FOR SOUND CARD
> MODE OPERATIONS THROUGHOUT THE U.S. WITH RESTRICTIONS AS NOTED - READ
> IN 2 (TWO) COLUMNS:
>   FREQUENCY  RESTRICTIONS
>     NDE      0001Z THROUGH 2000Z ONLY
>     NIA      NONE
>     NMA      NONE
> 3. BEACONS USING Q15X25 ARE ENCOURAGED. THIS MODE MIGHT BE ADAPTABLE
> FOR THE MDS BUT WE NEED MORE EXPERIMENTATION UNDER DIFFERING
> PROPAGATION CONDITIONS. IF YOU WANT TO SET UP A BEACON IN THIS MODE,
> SUBMIT YOUR CALL AND FREQUENCY TO NNN0ASA VA VIA YOUR CHAIN OF
> COMMAND. I WILL INCLUDE THAT INFORMATION IN THE WEEKLY INFO BCSTS.
> ONCE BEACONS ARE ESTABLISHED, SEND RECEPTION REPORTS TO THE BEACON
> STATION, INFO NNN0ASA VA AND YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND. 4. ALL STATIONS
> ARE ENCOURAGED TO SET UP SCHEDULES IN ANY SOUND CARD MODE WITH OTHER
> NAVMARCORMARS STATIONS BY MARSGRAM OR E-MAIL AND USE ANY OF THE ABOVE
> FREQUENCIES. IF YOU HAVE SIGNIFICANT (GOOD OR BAD) EXPERIENCES, LET
> YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND KNOW SO WE CAN GET A BETTER FEEL FOR WHAT WORKS
> AND WHAT DOESN'T. 5. NAVMARCORMARS: PROUDLY SERVING THOSE WHO SERVE.
> BT NNNN
>
>
>
>
>
> NNN0BJC DE NNN0ESH, SCA. NO TRAFFIC, SORRY FOR CHECKING LATE,
>
>
>
>
>
> 73 de Francisco O. Acosta          Software: Pacterm/KaGOLD/MixW
> USMC 2151776 "Semper Fi"     The Few , The Proud, The Marines
> 44713 Tarragon Dive                   For God, Country, Duty, Honor
> Lancaster, Ca. 93536-6409          E-Mail  nnn0esh@...  or
> (661) 948-3942   KE6ZUI / NNN0ESH       ke6zui@...

PK

73 de Francisco O. Acosta          Software: Pacterm/KaGOLD/MixW
USMC 2151776 "Semper Fi"     The Few , The Proud, The Marines
44713 Tarragon Dive                   For God, Country, Duty, Honor
Lancaster, Ca. 93536-6409          E-Mail  nnn0esh@...  or
(661) 948-3942   KE6ZUI / NNN0ESH       ke6zui@...

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This is that I would like to see in future version of Nino's MT63 program:

1. The ability to change or tune the audio frequency.
    (on my rig the RF output starts to roll off below 1000 Hz.
    With MixW I can set the MT63 audio at 1200 Hz - 2200 Hz and don't have
    that problem.)

2. The ability to select other waterfall palettes and move the waterfall to the
    bottom of the screen (like Stream).


73 de Tom ND5Y

=====
Ignore all Yahoo spam below this line:

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

--- In MT63@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Consodine, ND5Y" <nd5y@y...> wrote:
> This is that I would like to see in future version of Nino's MT63
program:
>
> 1. The ability to change or tune the audio frequency.
>
> 2. The ability to select other waterfall palettes and move the
waterfall to the
>    bottom of the screen (like Stream).

3. A Mailbox like mode. Allowing to connect other users and
transfering text / files - automatically repeating on wrong
reception...


[to be continued]


Regards,
   Andreas Weller, DF1PAW

Not aware of anyone yet using the 80 meter warbler on MT63, but I had
my first MT63 qso (500hz long interleave) using it over the weekend.
Power out was reading a average of about 1 watt, and was over a ~500
mile path. Copy was almost perfect in both directions.

Not a big deal, but something for the search engine if anyone every
questions if this "PSK31 only" rig will work on MT63. The down side
is you only have about 1.2khz to work with.

How did you make WinWarbler do MT63, please??

Omar , YK1AO

****************************
----- Original Message -----
From: "wb8wka" <wb8wka@...>
To: <MT63@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 8:06 PM
Subject: [MT63] Warbler works on MT63


> Not aware of anyone yet using the 80 meter warbler on MT63, but I had
> my first MT63 qso (500hz long interleave) using it over the weekend.
> Power out was reading a average of about 1 watt, and was over a ~500
> mile path. Copy was almost perfect in both directions.
>
> Not a big deal, but something for the search engine if anyone every
> questions if this "PSK31 only" rig will work on MT63. The down side
> is you only have about 1.2khz to work with.
>
>
>
> <<  Try MT63 on 80m - great fun!>>
>
> - The MT63 Reflector -
>    MT63@egroups.com
>
> (To unsubscribe. send email to
> MT63-unsubscribe@onelist.com)
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

I thought I posted to the group, but maybe just sent it to you
personally.   However, I disagree with your statement that it is "Not
a big deal. . ."  I think it is a very big deal!  I love to see
success stories and I know that there are more of us who would like
to hear how you accomplished this!   What freq?  Did you arrange
a "sked" with someone?  Why 500hz long interleave instead of 1000hz
etc. etc.

Best wishes,  Jim AG3Y


--- In MT63@yahoogroups.com, "wb8wka" <wb8wka@y...> wrote:
> Not aware of anyone yet using the 80 meter warbler on MT63, but I
had
> my first MT63 qso (500hz long interleave) using it over the
weekend.
> Power out was reading a average of about 1 watt, and was over a
~500
> mile path. Copy was almost perfect in both directions.
>
> Not a big deal, but something for the search engine if anyone every
> questions if this "PSK31 only" rig will work on MT63. The down side
> is you only have about 1.2khz to work with.

"Not a big deal" as there appeared to be no reason it wouldn't work.
Listed it here since the Warbler is sold as a PSK-31 transceiver. I
was aware of folks doing MFSK16 on it, but up until I did MT63 on it,
I hadn't heard of anyone doing that on it.

500hz/LI for two reasons. The person I saw calling CQ was running
500hz and the Warbler passband is only 1 to 1.2khz wide.

No sked arranged, I just have it always running in the background
through a second sound card.

--- In MT63@yahoogroups.com, "jim_ag3y" <jim_ag3y@y...> wrote:
> I thought I posted to the group, but maybe just sent it to you
> personally.   However, I disagree with your statement that it
is "Not
> a big deal. . ."  I think it is a very big deal!  I love to see
> success stories and I know that there are more of us who would like
> to hear how you accomplished this!   What freq?  Did you arrange
> a "sked" with someone?  Why 500hz long interleave instead of
1000hz
> etc. etc.
>
> Best wishes,  Jim AG3Y
>
>
> --- In MT63@yahoogroups.com, "wb8wka" <wb8wka@y...> wrote:
> > Not aware of anyone yet using the 80 meter warbler on MT63, but I
> had
> > my first MT63 qso (500hz long interleave) using it over the
> weekend.
> > Power out was reading a average of about 1 watt, and was over a
> ~500
> > mile path. Copy was almost perfect in both directions.
> >
> > Not a big deal, but something for the search engine if anyone
every
> > questions if this "PSK31 only" rig will work on MT63. The down
side
> > is you only have about 1.2khz to work with.

Tune it up properly on PSK31/MFSK16, then just switch modes. You
should see considerably less average power upon going to MT63.

I have an extra scope, I might just put a power tap on there and use
that in the future, but for now the above method seems to work OK.



--- In MT63@yahoogroups.com, "Omar Shabsigh" <shabs.om@s...> wrote:
> How did you make WinWarbler do MT63, please??
>
> Omar , YK1AO
>
> ****************************
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "wb8wka" <wb8wka@y...>
> To: <MT63@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 8:06 PM
> Subject: [MT63] Warbler works on MT63
>
>
> > Not aware of anyone yet using the 80 meter warbler on MT63, but I
had
> > my first MT63 qso (500hz long interleave) using it over the
weekend.
> > Power out was reading a average of about 1 watt, and was over a
~500
> > mile path. Copy was almost perfect in both directions.
> >
> > Not a big deal, but something for the search engine if anyone
every
> > questions if this "PSK31 only" rig will work on MT63. The down
side
> > is you only have about 1.2khz to work with.
> >
> >
> >
> > <<  Try MT63 on 80m - great fun!>>
> >
> > - The MT63 Reflector -
> >    MT63@egroups.com
> >
> > (To unsubscribe. send email to
> > MT63-unsubscribe@onelist.com)
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

I would be curious to know if you can transmit the 1000 hz mode near
the edge of the passband, and still have success even though some of
the frequencies are missing.   I believe you know what I am getting
at.

The other week, I had some Pactor interference and narrowed down my
receive passband tuning to the point that I was only picking up about
half the total frequencies that were being send by the other
station.  My error rate did not change one bit.  Still 100 percent
copy, even though half of the sidebands were "missing"!

I am just curious whether the same would hold true in the
transmission mode.  Only thing I can think of that might be a
stumbling block would be that the tones would "gray out" on one side
of the waterfall, which could fool someone trying to tune you in !
Come to think about it, though, I have seen some transmissions that
are doing exactly that.  I wonder if that had anything to do with it?

BTW, I believe I have seen some mods to allow you to shift around the
output frequency. Probably consist of changing the xtal, I suspect.
I'm betting it wouldn't be all that hard to put together a stable VFO
for the rig, either!  Wouldn't even need a crystal to hetrodyne
against! An LC oscillator would be plenty stable around 3.6 Mhz.
Well, more things to daydream about!  I hope to hear you on the band
with that rig some day!  73 from Jim AG3Y


> Not a big deal, but something for the search engine if anyone every
> questions if this "PSK31 only" rig will work on MT63. The down side
> is you only have about 1.2khz to work with.

Yes - now THESE would be excellent features!

On 9 Feb 2004 at 0:49, Andreas Weller wrote:

> 1. The ability to change or tune the audio frequency. > > 2. The
> ability to select other waterfall palettes and move the waterfall to
> the >
>    bottom of the screen (like Stream).
>
> 3. A Mailbox like mode. Allowing to connect other users and
> transfering text / files - automatically repeating on wrong
> reception...
>

Hello, I asked this in March of 2003 and never got an
answer. I thougth I would bring it up again to see if
there has been any progress?
----------------------------------------------------
Hello,
does anyone have information about exchanging pictures
using MT63 based on a technology called "triton" or
perhaps "titan"? there seems to be some beta testing
going on or perhaps just discussions among knowledgeable
MT63 users. Is there anything that can be shared with
the general ham community about this exciting
technology?
TNX de ken n9vv
http://www.n9vv.com

After reading many E-Mails on MT63, MFSK, Domino, and other HF data modes, it
has occurred to me that perhaps we, who are interested in HF data
transmissions, haven't conveyed to those writing the software what is really
desired.

So let me pose some questions…

What WPM data through put would you like to see?  This would be the data you
see on you monitor, not the raw data send by the mode.

How robust do you want the mode to be?  Should it be able to copy signals that
are almost undetectable in the noise, a few dB above the noise?

Understanding that FEC might cause some operational considerations, would you
want to see light, intermediate or heavy FEC?

Do you want a mode that is basically keyboard to keyboard "chat" or one that
can send files or both?

How would you like to see this mode used?  DX, rag chewing, net operation?

How much bandwidth should the mode use?  Understanding that the greater the
through put and greater the robustness of the mode the bandwidth might be
almost as wide as a SSB signal.

Would you like to see the mode be available for all generally used operating
systems, i.e. MS Windows 95/98/ME/W2K/XP, Linux, MAC, etc.?

If the "ultimate modem" was written for an OS that you don't use, would you
consider changing to that OS?

What in your opinion is needed to bring high speed, robust HF data operation to
amateur radio?

Please feel free to respond to me personally at dubose@...

Thanks & 73,

Walt/K5YFW

After reading many E-Mails on MFSK, Domino, and other HF data modes, it has
occurred to me that perhaps we, who are interested in HF data transmissions,
haven't conveyed to those writing the software what is really desired.

So let me pose some questions...

What WPM data through put would you like to see?  This would be the data you
see on you monitor, not the raw data send by the mode.

Now after receiving several goos responses, let me tell you about my highspeed
HF data experience.

Back in the last 1980’s I was using HF packet at 300 baud with not a lot of
success.  I had connections through the military with Harris RF Communications
Group and Collins Radio.  They told me about research that was done by Stanford
Research Institute shortly after WWII that determined that the maximum baud
rate to be used on HF was 110 baud and this was selected as the standard for HF
ASCII transmissions.

Both Harris and Collins admitted that this was too optimistic and that
something around 50 baud was a better figure and this is what they used in
their high speed HF modems.  Based on my experience with HF Packet and
information from harris and Collins, in the summer of 1990 I arranged for a
joint Army, Navy and Air Force exercise with the intent of exploiting high
speed HF data transmissions for military aeromedical evacuation purposes.

With the help of Harris and SAIC, we used the KA9Q NOS, an AEA PK-87 TNC with
the modem header plug removed and feeding a Harris MIL-STD-188-110 HF modem.

We were able to use a chat mode, with lags between transmission exchanges as
well as run E-Mail and transferred a “standard” 40KB file of typical
aeromedical evacuation data.  The standard file was transferred at 4800 BPS
under good propagation conditions and at 2400 BPS under conditions where a CW
signal would have been hard to copy.  We obtained 100% copy on the file and E-
Mail.

So I know what is possible…now let me answer my own “survey”.

=========================================================================

How robust do you want the mode to be?  Should it be able to copy signals that
are almost undetectable in the noise, a few dB above the noise?

I think that at 2400 BPS RAW through put you should be able to copy a signal
that is almost undetectable by ear.  At signal levels that are as good as would
support normal SSB voice communications, the RAW throughput should be a 4800
BPS.

Understanding that FEC might cause some operational considerations, would you
want to see light, intermediate or heavy FEC?

	 I would like to see intermediate and heavy FEC options available.

Do you want a mode that is basically keyboard to keyboard "chat" or one that
can send files or both?

	 Both.  I would like a robust chat mode that could support 60-80 WPM.

	 I also would want a file transfer mode that would run at a RAW data
         rate of 4800 BPS.

How would you like to see this mode used?  DX, rag chewing, net operation?

	 All of the above.

How much bandwidth should the mode use?  Understanding that the greater the
through put and greater the robustness of the mode the bandwidth might be
almost as wide as a SSB signal.

         The bandwidth of a SSB signal…i.e. if you can push it through
         a microphone jack in a currently in use HF rig, then that’s the
         bandwidth.

         I have also been fortunate in being able to talk to both FCC and ARRL
         legal counsel and agree that any mode that is publicly documented and
         can be pushed through a microphone jack of a currently used HF rig is
         Ok.

         Please note that AOR is selling a digital voice and data modem on the
         U.S. market using Charles Brain’s CODEX and from all reports, no one
         has received an FCC citation and the ARRL has in fact technically Oked
         it by publishing a review of the product in QST.

Would you like to see the mode be available for all generally used operating
systems, i.e. MS Windows 95/98/ME/W2K/XP, Linux, MAC, etc.?

         I would want to seen any mode be able to be used on all common OS’
         such as those listed above.

If the "ultimate modem" was written for an OS that you don't use, would you
consider changing to that OS?

          NO.  My choice of OS is based on my personal needs and desires.  But
          realizing that others may not use or want to use my OS, I think that
          software modems should be written so that any of the common in use OS’
          could be accommodated.

What in your opinion is needed to bring high speed, robust HF data operation to
amateur radio?

          I think the AOR digital voice/data modem is a start…just a bit
          pricie.

          I believe that AOR has set the bar and software modems need to meet
          and exceed its performance.

          I don’t think we have to start over on any one modem…but should
          consider where the bench mark should be…a goal if you please.

          Also, I’m not sure that we wouldn’t want to have one mode for chat and
          one for file transfer and E-mail transfer and the like…but I would
          insist that what even modes/modems used by brought together in one
          applications package.


73,

Walt/K5YFW

Time for a gentle reminder -

Lobbying for a new digital mode that does exactly what you want isn't
anything like like politics. No matter how much noise you make, the
wished-for design won't happen any sooner. Nor will a race to develop what
you want happen.

Just because someone can dream of a mode that goes at a great speed, has
modest bandwidth, sends files and pictures as quick as lightning, and works
on all platforms... it isn't necessarily going to happen. Let me explain -

Properly designed digital modes have to take into account the frequency the
mode is to be used on, what real bandwidth is available, what data products
need to be transmitted, what type of user interface is needed, what modes,
modulations and mechanisms (if any) can support the required bandwidth with
the prevailing ionospheric conditions for the intended band, what type of
platform is required to handle the processing, and what sort of tools are
required to develop the software.

Let's be frank - very few designers, even those paid to do so, have the
resources, capabilities and skill to do what everyone seems to wish for, and
the other requirements are even less likely to be met in the short term.

So please be patient. Enjoy what can be done with the available resources,
and give maximum support to the guys that research the designs and cut the
code.

Oh, and by the way, I know of nobody doing development work of any kind
based on MT63. I'd be very pleased to hear otherwise!

Murray ZL1BPU

Another member commented that digital voice would be useful when he was saying
what he was looking for in a digital mode.

I've been playing with DRM (amongst other things) a lot in the last year and a
half and it's not entirely unrelated in general style to, say, Charle's Brain's
implementation of digital voice that was used by AOR. Usual kind of thing,
multiple digital signals within a limited bandwidth, etc. (That's just looking
very, very broadly at the basic way it's done - look closely and they're rather
different at that level.)

I've drawn two conclusions about digital voice on HF -

The decoded speech quality can be impressively good.

Whoever thought of doing this was mixing good coding schemes against a medium
for which it's totally unsuited.

- you aren't going to get a robust and decent-sounding digital speech signal
signal into between 3 and 10 kHz of bandwidth - you trade bandwidth, speech
quality and signal redundancy against each other - without being able to produce
a very, very strong signal at your target. That's so the error rate in the
signal is kept at an absolute minimum because the signal redundancy (read:
ability to handle errors in the incoming data stream)had to be kept fairly low
to keep the signal within a reasonable/legal bandwidth.

Right now most of what I've seen tends to require signals in the S9+18 region
for continuous speech recovery, drop it by just 3dB and you'll be lucky to get
half to two thirds of what's being sent.

Maybe this can be improved upon as DSP power increases, but don't expect to work
that S2 signal with digital voice at this time. Or that S7-S9 signal, either...

I figure that digital voice might well be adopted by a subset of the amateur
population who presently like to tweak AM gear on 80 meters. For DXers and
anyone who isn't part of a government though, it's presently useless.

   Just my five cent's worth. If anyone has new info or corrections to make....?

                        Lee

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 dubose@... wrote:

> Do you want a mode that is basically keyboard to keyboard "chat" or one
> that can send files or both?

Something similar to packet would be quite nice.  Packet offers low duty
cycle, low utilization of the frequency, data integrity and in some cases
like Q15X25 high throughput.

It would be nice to see a protocol come forth that transmits only when
there is something to be sent, unlike constant-carrier modes that
continuously transmit even when the sending station is idle between
sentences, etc.  Perhaps a modified xmodem style would fit the bill - send
32 characters, wait for ACK, send another 32, etc. after 5 successful 32
byte packets, increase to 64, then 128, etc.


73 Jason N1SU

At 10:00 AM 2/18/2004, you wrote:
>Please note that AOR is selling a digital voice and data modem on the
>         U.S. market using Charles Brain's CODEX and from all reports, no one
>         has received an FCC citation and the ARRL has in fact technically
> Oked
>         it by publishing a review of the product in QST.


Why would anyone receive a citation as long as they use the emissions set
forth in Part 97?  The 80 through 10 meter bands have a phone/image subband
and a RTTY/Datra subband.  If you are going to do phone, then today it must
be in the in the phone image subbands.  If you are going to send files (not
images), it must be in the RTTY/Data subbands.  The only possible error a
U.S. ham could make is not switching freqs in the 80 through 10 meter bands
when switching from phone/image to data or visa versa.

73

Mark N5RFX

On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 00:27, correspondence@... wrote:

> I've been playing with DRM ...

> - you aren't going to get a robust and decent-sounding digital
> speech signal signal into between 3 and 10 kHz of bandwidth -
> you trade bandwidth, speech quality and signal redundancy
> against each other - without being able to produce a very,
> very strong signal at your target. That's so the error rate
> in the signal is kept at an absolute minimum because the
> signal redundancy (read: ability to handle errors in the
> incoming data stream)had to be kept fairly low to keep the
> signal within a reasonable/legal bandwidth.

One thing to remember is that in DRM, the sound codecs used are
optimised for music (typically -- they have speech codecs as well).
To sound good, they need quite impressive bitrates and thus SNR.
(It's a whole different matter whether they actually get good
sound quality. I don't think so...)

Anyway, intelligible and identifiable speech can be sent with
quite low bit rates. Rates that can be achieved with SSB bandwidth
and reasonable signal strengths.

--
Tomi Manninen / OH2BNS / KP20ME04

At 14:18 02/22/2004, Tomi wrote:
>Anyway, intelligible and identifiable speech can be sent with
>quite low bit rates. Rates that can be achieved with SSB bandwidth
>and reasonable signal strengths.


Right, Tomi, it definitely can - the problem here with this particular
application of the technology is that the broadcasters are pushing "near
FM" sound quality, so -

Narrow bandwidth

High redundancy

Quality sound

   - pick any TWO of the three - that's the way it is...


                              Lee

--- In MT63@yahoogroups.com, Mark Miller <kramrellim@c...> wrote:
> At 10:00 AM 2/18/2004, you wrote:
> Why would anyone receive a citation as long as they use the
emissions set
> forth in Part 97?  The 80 through 10 meter bands have a phone/image
subband
> and a RTTY/Datra subband.  If you are going to do phone, then today
it must
> be in the in the phone image subbands.  If you are going to send
files (not
> images), it must be in the RTTY/Data subbands.  The only possible
error a
> U.S. ham could make is not switching freqs in the 80 through 10
meter bands
> when switching from phone/image to data or visa versa.
>
> 73
>
> Mark N5RFX

Hi guys:  I have been following the discussions about
digital/image/voice/etc./etc./etc.  for some time now.

I see two major areas that have the greatest concern over this
situation.

1).  The guys that use MixW down in the "digital" portion of the HF
bands have been able to send images using a modification of a fax
protocol.  They claim that since the bandwidth and baud rate, etc. do
not exceed that of the MFSK protocol that launches the image file,
that it is legal.

2).  The guys that send SSTV up in the SSB portion of the HF bands
using conventional analog methods that have been accepted for quite
some time now, have recently started sending "image files" using a
couple of new protocols that are very digital in their look and
feel.  However, they claim that since the files they are sending and
then processing on their computers are accepted image format files
( .bmp .jpg ) that they are actually sending images, and not digital
files!

To me, the line is very gray and fuzzy.  It has been discussed at
length on the SSTV, MIXW and other digital radio interest
reflectors.

I personally am not going to "test the waters" by sending these
questionable modes over the air.  Until I have seen a re-write of the
Rules and Regulations by the F.C.C. itself, and a separation of the
bands into "Voice/nonVoice" modes, I would rather be "safe than
sorry".

I know the F.C.C. has other, more pressing things on its mind right
now, but wouldn't it be great if they would re-write their Rules&Regs
and bring them up into the 21st century?   Remember, the
only "digital mode" that existed when the current rules were adopted
was RTTY !  ( beside CW, of course )

73 from Jim AG3Y

On 25 Feb 2004 at 18:59, jim_ag3y wrote:

>
> I know the F.C.C. has other, more pressing things on its mind right
> now,

Yes, I believe that they are busy selling the right to ruin the
HF spectrum worldwide to the highest bidder, which is entirely illegal and in
conntravention of international treaties.

The name of their treasonous project: "BPL."

> but wouldn't it be great if they would re-write their Rules&Regs
> and bring them up into the 21st century?   Remember, the only "digital
> mode" that existed when the current rules were adopted was RTTY !  (
> beside CW, of course )
>
> 73 from Jim AG3Y

I'm usualy listening AND calling on 14,109.5 between 19:00 and 23:59Z
most days and there is no activity that I can hear...
Sad Sad Sad...
Will be there tomorrow again
François VE2KV