Recently I have talked to several other Olivia stations that had very
strong signals that decoded very poorly - less than 50% accuracy. It
didn' make sense since Olivia does such a great job most of the
time.

I use the HRD DM780 software for Olivia and 2 days ago after calling
a CQ on 30mtrs I got a reply from a station that I could hardly
decode - not even enough to get a complete call sign and he was s9+
10db. I went back to the station and said I couldn't copy and that IF
he was copying me to go to PSK31. He did and we copied each other
pretty good then and it was a guy I have talked to MANY times before
on Olivia and he said he had just upgraded from MultiPSK 4.2 to 4.7.
He still had BOTH on the system so he went back to 4.2 and called me
on Olivia and the decoding was 100% perfect - just like I would
expect. I experienced the same with another station with MultiPSK 4.7
and he switched to DM780 and again we had perfect print.

There apparently seems to be a problem between MultiPSK 4.7 and DM780
(I'm running latest beta on DM780).  I suspect it may be a problem
with MultiPSK and perhaps ANY other Olivia software - though maybe
NOT with other MultiPSK 4.7 itself.

This post was for 3 reasons - informational in case others experience
strong Olivia sigs that don't decode well and to see if anyone would
like to do some tests on the air IF they have MultiPSK, MixW, DM780
or other software with Olivia to see exactly just where the problem
lays.

And lastly to see if anyone else has experienced the same thing.

--- In multipsk@yahoogroups.com, "dl8le" <dl8le@...> wrote:

Dave, I don't know if the other person is confusing similar Olivia
modes or not because - as said by me - I have been unable to find
such a problem or make any tests myself.

If the statement is correct that with version 4.2 everything is
working fine then those who still have access to 4.2 should be able
to replicate it. If a replication is not possible your explanation
could be the reason why this has happened.

I hope that the author of the original post will move to this
reflector as well or is here already to allow me not to forward every
mail on this topic to the Olivia reflector ....

73

Juergen, DL8LE

--- In multipsk@yahoogroups.com, "David Bastress" <bastress@>
wrote:
>
> GE Juergen,
>
> I wonder if you and this other person may be confusing somewhat
similar
> Olivia modes.  For example, Olivia 500 HZ wide with 8 tones is
about the
> same width at Olivia 500 Hz with 16 tones.  And Olivia 1000 Hz wide
with
> 16 tones is about the same width as Olivia 1000 Hz with 32 tones.
If
> one doesn't look carefully at the signal and count the number of
tones
> present then it is sometimes hard to know which Olivia mode to use
to
> set your program to properly decode the signal being heard.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> 73,
> Dave K3GAU
>
>
>
> >>> "dl8le" <dl8le@> 03/23/08 7:19 PM >>>
> I have just found this in the Olivia Reflector. I don't know if
> anybody else experienced something similar, because I didn't due to
> some time problems. I also don't have any earlier version than 4.7
> available to do some testing myself now. I hope Patrick will find
an
> explanation / solution.
>
> 73
>
> Juergen, DL8LE
>
> --- In oliviadata@yahoogroups.com, "garylinnrobinson" <grobinson@>
> wrote:
>
> Recently I have talked to several other Olivia stations that had
very
> strong signals that decoded very poorly - less than 50% accuracy.
It
> didn' make sense since Olivia does such a great job most of the
> time.
>
> I use the HRD DM780 software for Olivia and 2 days ago after
calling
> a CQ on 30mtrs I got a reply from a station that I could hardly
> decode - not even enough to get a complete call sign and he was s9+
> 10db. I went back to the station and said I couldn't copy and that
IF
> he was copying me to go to PSK31. He did and we copied each other
> pretty good then and it was a guy I have talked to MANY times
before
> on Olivia and he said he had just upgraded from MultiPSK 4.2 to
4.7.
> He still had BOTH on the system so he went back to 4.2 and called
me
> on Olivia and the decoding was 100% perfect - just like I would
> expect. I experienced the same with another station with MultiPSK
4.7
> and he switched to DM780 and again we had perfect print.
>
> There apparently seems to be a problem between MultiPSK 4.7 and
DM780
> (I'm running latest beta on DM780).  I suspect it may be a problem
> with MultiPSK and perhaps ANY other Olivia software - though maybe
> NOT with other MultiPSK 4.7 itself.
>
> This post was for 3 reasons - informational in case others
experience
> strong Olivia sigs that don't decode well and to see if anyone
would
> like to do some tests on the air IF they have MultiPSK, MixW, DM780
> or other software with Olivia to see exactly just where the problem
> lays.
>
> And lastly to see if anyone else has experienced the same thing.
>
> --- End forwarded message ---
>

--- End forwarded message ---

Hi

I was lust running some S/N test here. Comparing Mixw 2.18, Olivia Aid
(The original most sens. Olivia version), together with all Multipsk modes
up to the latest. With absolut lowest possible signals.
I did find no differences between any Multipsk Versions.
The original Olivia Aid is still about 1 - 2 db better.

Chris HB9BDM

dl8le schrieb:

> I have just found this in the Olivia Reflector. I don't know if
> anybody else experienced something similar, because I didn't due to
> some time problems. I also don't have any earlier version than 4.7
> available to do some testing myself now. I hope Patrick will find an
> explanation / solution.
>
> 73
>
> Juergen, DL8LE
>
> --- In oliviadata@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:oliviadata%40yahoogroups.com>, "garylinnrobinson" <grobinson@...>
> wrote:
>
> Recently I have talked to several other Olivia stations that had very
> strong signals that decoded very poorly - less than 50% accuracy. It
> didn' make sense since Olivia does such a great job most of the
> time.
>
> I use the HRD DM780 software for Olivia and 2 days ago after calling
> a CQ on 30mtrs I got a reply from a station that I could hardly
> decode - not even enough to get a complete call sign and he was s9+
> 10db. I went back to the station and said I couldn't copy and that IF
> he was copying me to go to PSK31. He did and we copied each other
> pretty good then and it was a guy I have talked to MANY times before
> on Olivia and he said he had just upgraded from MultiPSK 4.2 to 4.7.
> He still had BOTH on the system so he went back to 4.2 and called me
> on Olivia and the decoding was 100% perfect - just like I would
> expect. I experienced the same with another station with MultiPSK 4.7
> and he switched to DM780 and again we had perfect print.
>
> There apparently seems to be a problem between MultiPSK 4.7 and DM780
> (I'm running latest beta on DM780). I suspect it may be a problem
> with MultiPSK and perhaps ANY other Olivia software - though maybe
> NOT with other MultiPSK 4.7 itself.
>
> This post was for 3 reasons - informational in case others experience
> strong Olivia sigs that don't decode well and to see if anyone would
> like to do some tests on the air IF they have MultiPSK, MixW, DM780
> or other software with Olivia to see exactly just where the problem
> lays.
>
> And lastly to see if anyone else has experienced the same thing.
>
> --- End forwarded message ---
>
>

Just as a follow up on my original post -

There was NO confusion as to what configuration of Olivia the station
I mentioned and I were using since we had talked to the same station
MANY times before AND we QSY'd to PSK31 and confirmed what we were
using.

And we could recreate the BAD copy each time we HE went back to 4.7.

I ran a TEST yesterday with a local station - with ME using MultiPSK
4.7 and the other local using FLDigi - on 2mtrs where we could use
extremely strong AND weak signals and MultiPSK worked perfectly.

So ... I am NOT sure what my friends (with the MultiPSK 4.7 problem)
computer config is BUT I have a 3ghz CPU. Perhaps the memory
requirements of MultiPSK 4.7 have increased? That would explain why
my station had no problem sending perfect Olivia with 4.7 - OR as I
read in another a post - maybe a missing soundcard calibration file -
that sounds very likely.

I also know that I have ran into this at least twice before with
other stations answering my CQ but can't confirm that MultiPSK was
involved (because at the time I thought I was having a problem).  But
I would bet my last dollar it was MultiPSK 4.7 or something similar
because when they were NOT decoding correctly they had similar
characteristics.

I would get 2-3 words decoding properly and then miss a whole bunch
then another word or 2, miss a bunch and so forth. Almost like QSB
except there would be NO QSB and sigs were strong.

So, I think the soundcard calibration file being missing could
explain everything. I just wanted to get to the bottom of it because
there are already so many people that dismiss Olivia and I don't want
to give them any more ammo.

BTW - I just recently recieved a letter from the A.R.R.L that they
will be publishing an informational article by me about Olivia in QST
magazine later this year and I hope that can boost awareness of the
mode and get some more people interested in it.

--- In oliviadata@yahoogroups.com, "garylinnrobinson" <grobinson@...>
wrote:
>
> Recently I have talked to several other Olivia stations that had
very
> strong signals that decoded very poorly - less than 50% accuracy.
It
> didn' make sense since Olivia does such a great job most of the
> time.
>
> I use the HRD DM780 software for Olivia and 2 days ago after
calling
> a CQ on 30mtrs I got a reply from a station that I could hardly
> decode - not even enough to get a complete call sign and he was s9+
> 10db. I went back to the station and said I couldn't copy and that
IF
> he was copying me to go to PSK31. He did and we copied each other
> pretty good then and it was a guy I have talked to MANY times
before
> on Olivia and he said he had just upgraded from MultiPSK 4.2 to
4.7.
> He still had BOTH on the system so he went back to 4.2 and called
me
> on Olivia and the decoding was 100% perfect - just like I would
> expect. I experienced the same with another station with MultiPSK
4.7
> and he switched to DM780 and again we had perfect print.
>
> There apparently seems to be a problem between MultiPSK 4.7 and
DM780
> (I'm running latest beta on DM780).  I suspect it may be a problem
> with MultiPSK and perhaps ANY other Olivia software - though maybe
> NOT with other MultiPSK 4.7 itself.
>
> This post was for 3 reasons - informational in case others
experience
> strong Olivia sigs that don't decode well and to see if anyone
would
> like to do some tests on the air IF they have MultiPSK, MixW, DM780
> or other software with Olivia to see exactly just where the problem
> lays.
>
> And lastly to see if anyone else has experienced the same thing.
>

1. How do I set up the input level properly from the sound card to the rig?
   I currently have the gain set low enough that I am seeing no ALC action.  Is there anything else I should be looking at?
   
   
2. The other question would be how to calibrate the sound card; is there a program out there that I can use for that?
   

At 08:53 PM 4/21/2008, David F. Reed wrote:
>    * The other question would be how to calibrate the sound card;
> is there a program out there that I can use for that?
I think calibration is your problem.  There is a program in
C:\Program Files\MixW called CheckSR.exe .  First run your test with
a sample rate of 11025  Let it run for a while and if you get big
numbers in the difference ppm boxes, then this is your problem.  Run
it at 12000 and see if the difference ppm numbers are two digit.

If 12000 didn't make a big difference, then take the TX and RX
difference ppm numbers and enter those in MixW Configure Sound Device
settings clock adjustment ppm for TX and RX respectively.

If 12000 looks good change the sample rate in MixW Configure Sound
Device settings to 12000 and enter the PPM numbers from CheckSR.exe .

Good luck and 73,
Mark N5RFX

At 08:53 PM 4/21/2008, David F. Reed wrote:

 * The other question would be how to calibrate the sound card; is there a program out there that I can use for that?

I think calibration is your problem. There is a program in C:\Program Files\MixW called CheckSR.exe . First run your test with a sample rate of 11025 Let it run for a while and if you get big numbers in the difference ppm boxes, then this is your problem. Run it at 12000 and see if the difference ppm numbers are two digit.
If 12000 didn't make a big difference, then take the TX and RX difference ppm numbers and enter those in MixW Configure Sound Device settings clock adjustment ppm for TX and RX respectively.
If 12000 looks good change the sample rate in MixW Configure Sound Device settings to 12000 and enter the PPM numbers from CheckSR.exe .
Good luck and 73,
Mark N5RFX 

At 09:13 AM 4/22/2008, David F. Reed wrote:
thank you for the info; it was a big help; indeed, at the 11025
sample rate, I was off on the TX side by over 7000, but on the 12000
sample rate it was at 306, TX and RX; set that in and things are
working fine, so you were correct in your troubleshooting advice.

Dave you are welcome.  I have seen this so many times with
soundcards.  Many folks will chuck the soundcard, but if you do a
little tweaking most of them can be made to work FB.

73,
Mark N5RFX

FCC "received 650 comments and reply comments,
most of which opposed" Mark Miller's so-called
Digital Stone Age Petition RM-11392.

If you remember, a bulletin about this petition
was sent out in December 2007, and many ham
operators mobilized to respond to FCC at that time.

The petition seeked to eliminate various digital
data communications methods, including Olivia,
ALE, and PACTOR, and to turn the clock back on digital
innovation in the USA Amateur Radio Service.

Thankfully, for the future of ham radio, the FCC
reasonably considered it, and determined that it
was neither convinced nor persuaded to pursue
anything in Mr. Miller's petition.

In FCC's official consideration statements, FCC
specifically supports no finite limit of bandwidth for
digital data emissions for the amateur radio service.
FCC instead prefers to rely upon existing rules, and to
encourage amateur radio operators to advance the
radio art. FCC said that imposition of such limits
might impede experimentation and technological innovation.

Importantly, FCC also says that it does not believe
that it is in the public interest to prohibit
communications technology that is already in current
use in the Amateur Radio Service.

The following are a few key paragraphs of FCC's order
denying the petition.

73--- Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA

Full document:
http://hflink.com/fcc/digitalstoneage/denied.pdf

Excerpts:
FCC ORDER
Adopted: May 6, 2008 Released: May 7, 2008
"In this Order, we address a petition for rulemaking filed by Mark
Miller (Miller), requesting amendment of the Commission's Amateur
Radio Service rules to revise the operating privileges for amateur
radio service stations that transmit data emission types.
Specifically, the Petition requests that Sections 97.3, 97.221,
97.305, and 97.307 of the Commission's Rules be amended to revise
various definitions and frequency privileges. Based upon the record
before us, we deny the Petition."

"On March 27, 2007, Miller requested that the Commission amend various
rules that relate to use of amateur service spectrum by stations
transmitting data and other narrow bandwidth emissions.
Specifically, the petition requests that the Commission

(1) amend the definition of data in Section 97.3(c)(2) to delete
language added in the Commission's 2006 Omnibus Report and Order,3

(2) amend Section 97.221 to limit the subbands on which unattended
operation of automatically controlled digital stations is permitted,
and (3) amend Sections 97.305 and 97.307 to establish maximum
necessary bandwidths for radioteletype (RTTY)4 and data emissions in
the amateur high frequency (HF) bands."

"As Miller notes, adoption of these proposed changes would result in
'a small number of wider bandwidth modes,' including Pactor III, not
being authorized. In support of these requests, the petition states
that 'emissions have crept into the narrowband RTTY/Data subbands in
the 80 through 10-meter bands that are not appropriate for the
RTTY/Data subbands,' and that 'stations under automatic control have
taken advantage of loopholes created by terminology in the
commission's rules'. We received over 650 comments and reply comments,
most of which oppose the petition."

"We are not persuaded that the petitioner has presented sufficient
reason to justify the requested amendment. The present rules allow
amateur stations to transmit PSK data emissions subject to the
conditions that the station transmission shall occupy no more
bandwidth than necessary for the information rate and emission type
being transmitted, and that emissions resulting from modulation must
be confined to the band or segment available to the control operator.
We believe that these rules provide amateur service licensees the
flexibility to develop new technologies within the spectrum authorized
for the various classes of licensees, while protecting other users of
the spectrum from harmful interference. We also believe that imposing
a maximum bandwidth limitation on data emissions would result in a
loss of flexibility to develop and improve technologies as licensees'
operating interests change, new technologies are incorporated, and
frequency bands are reallocated.
Additionally, we believe that amending the amateur service rules to
limit the ability of amateur stations to experiment with various
communications technologies or otherwise impeding their ability to
advance the radio art would be inconsistent with the definition and
purpose of the amateur service. Moreover, we do not believe that
changing the rules to prohibit a communications technology currently
in use is in the public interest."

"CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES"
"Based on the record before us, we conclude that Miller has not set
forth sufficient reasons for the Commission to propose to delete the
2006 addition to the definition of data, amend the rules to prohibit
automatically controlled stations from transmitting on frequency
segments other than those specified in Section 97.221(b), or replace
the symbol rate limits in Section 97.307(f) with bandwidth
limitations. Consequently, we deny the Petition."
" IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.407 of the Commission's
Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.407, the Petition for Rule Making submitted by
Mark Miller on March 27, 2007, RM-11392, IS DENIED."


--

I recently copied a QSO on 80mtrs (Olivia) where the one station said
that Ollvia was almost as good as MFSK16 for decoding below the noise
floor. I found this at odds to with both the tests I have done on
UHF/VHF and HF - and on the air experiences. The fellow then mentioned
that he was using MultiPSK 4.8.

I decided to do a side-by-side receiving/decoding test with DM780
software (1806 beta) and MultiPSK 4.8 and found that DM780
consistently could decode very weak signals 80-90 pct. copy that
MultiPSK would only get 10pct or less of. I was surprised - but did
the test on 40 meters and 30 meters several times with both programs
running simultaneously on my 3ghz clone computer decoding the same
signals and then comparing the accuracy. Numerous settings were tried.

I have also ran into at least 8 different stations running MultiPSK
4.7 or newer that I can't decode UNLESS I run MultiPSK 4.7 or later.
DM780 won't decode them - FLDigi on Linux won't decode them. It's
enough to make me wonder just what is going on with MultiPSK - I have
never had a problem decoding earlier versions on Olivia with any other
program.

I like MultiPSK for packet and ALE400 use but have stopped using it
for Olivia because it just doesn't perform all that well on that mode.
  and I can't recommend it to anyone for Olivia either.

I'm very surprised.

FWIW DM780 uses Pavel's source without any improvements other than a
re-write to use more standard C++ classes and remove the heavy templating.

Now DM780 samples at 48kHz decimated to 8kHz. If MultiPSK is using 11,025Hz
and you are on W2K or XP then the reason for poor decoding could be
soundcard calibration - the 11,025Hz signal being generated by a poor
Windows driver which is now much, much better with VISTA.

A reason for DM780 using 48kHz is that the data is returned from the
soundcard at this rate without any need for modification. Some (most)
soundcards cannot return 11,025Hz and this value is generated by Windows by
converting from 48, 96 or 44.1kHz. For playing Spice Girls and Britney
Spears it's OK, for digital modes it is not - it can be up to 1% out.

Simon Brown, HB9DRV

--------------------------------------------------
From: "garylinnrobinson" <grobin1949@...>
>
> I decided to do a side-by-side receiving/decoding test with DM780
> software (1806 beta) and MultiPSK 4.8 and found that DM780
> consistently could decode very weak signals 80-90 pct. copy that
> MultiPSK would only get 10pct or less of.
>

Patrick issued a test version sampling at 48 kHz to do some research
around that sampling issue, and asked for feedback from users. Quite a
few of us returned our measurement results to the MultiPSK list.

73,

Jose, CO2JA

---

Simon Brown wrote:

> I'm very surprised.
>
> FWIW DM780 uses Pavel's source without any improvements other than a
> re-write to use more standard C++ classes and remove the heavy templating.
>
> Now DM780 samples at 48kHz decimated to 8kHz. If MultiPSK is using 11,025Hz
> and you are on W2K or XP then the reason for poor decoding could be
> soundcard calibration - the 11,025Hz signal being generated by a poor
> Windows driver which is now much, much better with VISTA.
>
> A reason for DM780 using 48kHz is that the data is returned from the
> soundcard at this rate without any need for modification. Some (most)
> soundcards cannot return 11,025Hz and this value is generated by Windows by
> converting from 48, 96 or 44.1kHz. For playing Spice Girls and Britney
> Spears it's OK, for digital modes it is not - it can be up to 1% out.
>
> Simon Brown, HB9DRV

Hi All,

I have heard for a long time, that Multipsk (any version) is not all
that crash hot in decoding Olivia. Also its MFSK16 protocol was slightly
different from the standard one. It seems that Patrick has slipped in an
Olivia "improvement" since v 4.7? Any comments Patrick?

A few weeks ago I also had a problem with fldigi 2.10.3 on my pretty
slow (566 MHz) PC. DJ2UK reported that the Olivia signal looked
"asymmetrical" on his waterfall (he uses MixW) and the decodes were
poor. When I switched to gMFSK.hkj.53 all was well! gMFSK uses
noticeably less CPU resources than fldigi.

--
73: Waldis Jirgens - VK1WJ - http://mywebpage.netscape.com/ilgonis


garylinnrobinson wrote:
>
>
> I recently copied a QSO on 80mtrs (Olivia) where the one station said
> that Ollvia was almost as good as MFSK16 for decoding below the noise
> floor. I found this at odds to with both the tests I have done on
> UHF/VHF and HF - and on the air experiences. The fellow then mentioned
> that he was using MultiPSK 4.8.
>
> I decided to do a side-by-side receiving/decoding test with DM780
> software (1806 beta) and MultiPSK 4.8 and found that DM780
> consistently could decode very weak signals 80-90 pct. copy that
> MultiPSK would only get 10pct or less of. I was surprised - but did
> the test on 40 meters and 30 meters several times with both programs
> running simultaneously on my 3ghz clone computer decoding the same
> signals and then comparing the accuracy. Numerous settings were tried.
>
> I have also ran into at least 8 different stations running MultiPSK
> 4.7 or newer that I can't decode UNLESS I run MultiPSK 4.7 or later.
> DM780 won't decode them - FLDigi on Linux won't decode them. It's
> enough to make me wonder just what is going on with MultiPSK - I have
> never had a problem decoding earlier versions on Olivia with any other
> program.
>
> I like MultiPSK for packet and ALE400 use but have stopped using it
> for Olivia because it just doesn't perform all that well on that mode.
> and I can't recommend it to anyone for Olivia either.

BUT, Simon, what about the "sync" setting in DM780 for Olivia?  Would
not this add to the ability to decode very weak signals, perhaps more
so than MPSK without a sync feature ?

In my shack, I have always found Olivia in Multipsk to perform very well .

Andy

On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 2:59 AM, Simon Brown <simon.brown@...> wrote:
> I'm very surprised.
>
> FWIW DM780 uses Pavel's source without any improvements other than a
> re-write to use more standard C++ classes and remove the heavy templating.
>
> Now DM780 samples at 48kHz decimated to 8kHz. If MultiPSK is using 11,025Hz
> and you are on W2K or XP then the reason for poor decoding could be
> soundcard calibration - the 11,025Hz signal being generated by a poor
> Windows driver which is now much, much better with VISTA.
>
> A reason for DM780 using 48kHz is that the data is returned from the
> soundcard at this rate without any need for modification. Some (most)
> soundcards cannot return 11,025Hz and this value is generated by Windows by
> converting from 48, 96 or 44.1kHz. For playing Spice Girls and Britney
> Spears it's OK, for digital modes it is not - it can be up to 1% out.
>
> Simon Brown, HB9DRV
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "garylinnrobinson" <grobin1949@...>
>
>>
>> I decided to do a side-by-side receiving/decoding test with DM780
>> software (1806 beta) and MultiPSK 4.8 and found that DM780
>> consistently could decode very weak signals 80-90 pct. copy that
>> MultiPSK would only get 10pct or less of.
>>
>



--
Andy K3UK
www.obriensweb.com
(QSL via N2RJ)

Yes it would - especially the way I search for signals to get really tuned
in.

Simon Brown, HB9DRV

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Andrew O'Brien" <andrewobrie@...>

> BUT, Simon, what about the "sync" setting in DM780 for Olivia?  Would
> not this add to the ability to decode very weak signals, perhaps more
> so than MPSK without a sync feature ?

I have used Olivia a lot using Multipsk and MixW with additional use
of Olivia in the past few months using DM780.  I doubt the claims that
Multipsk's implementation of Olivia is "not good".

MFSK16 ,on the other hand, does appear to have a tough time sync'ing
to the signal initially, in Multipsk .   DM780's MFSK seems to be much
easier to sync.

ANdy K3UK

On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 7:10 AM, Waldis Jirgens <waldis@...> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have heard for a long time, that Multipsk (any version) is not all
> that crash hot in decoding Olivia. Also its MFSK16 protocol was slightly
> different from the standard one. It seems that Patrick has slipped in an
> Olivia "improvement" since v 4.7? Any comments Patrick?
>
> A few weeks ago I also had a problem with fldigi 2.10.3 on my pretty
> slow (566 MHz) PC. DJ2UK reported that the Olivia signal looked
> "asymmetrical" on his waterfall (he uses MixW) and the decodes were
> poor. When I switched to gMFSK.hkj.53 all was well! gMFSK uses
> noticeably less CPU resources than fldigi.
>
> --
> 73: Waldis Jirgens - VK1WJ - http://mywebpage.netscape.com/ilgonis
>
> garylinnrobinson wrote:
>>
>>
>> I recently copied a QSO on 80mtrs (Olivia) where the one station said
>> that Ollvia was almost as good as MFSK16 for decoding below the noise
>> floor. I found this at odds to with both the tests I have done on
>> UHF/VHF and HF - and on the air experiences. The fellow then mentioned
>> that he was using MultiPSK 4.8.
>>
>> I decided to do a side-by-side receiving/decoding test with DM780
>> software (1806 beta) and MultiPSK 4.8 and found that DM780
>> consistently could decode very weak signals 80-90 pct. copy that
>> MultiPSK would only get 10pct or less of. I was surprised - but did
>> the test on 40 meters and 30 meters several times with both programs
>> running simultaneously on my 3ghz clone computer decoding the same
>> signals and then comparing the accuracy. Numerous settings were tried.
>>
>> I have also ran into at least 8 different stations running MultiPSK
>> 4.7 or newer that I can't decode UNLESS I run MultiPSK 4.7 or later.
>> DM780 won't decode them - FLDigi on Linux won't decode them. It's
>> enough to make me wonder just what is going on with MultiPSK - I have
>> never had a problem decoding earlier versions on Olivia with any other
>> program.
>>
>> I like MultiPSK for packet and ALE400 use but have stopped using it
>> for Olivia because it just doesn't perform all that well on that mode.
>> and I can't recommend it to anyone for Olivia either.
>
>



--
Andy K3UK
www.obriensweb.com
(QSL via N2RJ)

I have 4 computers - with WnxXP, Vista, Linux and other O.S.'s - I am
doing a comparison between MultiPSK, DM780, and FLDigi later this week
using multiple computers and listening to the same sound source and
will see what I get with that.

The reason I made the initial posting is because regardless of what
the reasons are - DM780 does decode a lot better than MultiPSK and I
am afraid that many people who use MultiPSK are inadvertently -
unfairly judging the Olivia mode by the results they are getting with it.

I urge others to do some side by side test on very weak signals - and
of course use at least a 1ghz or better computer. I use both programs
and was surprised at my own results. It should be interesting to see
what FLDigi does (on Kubuntu 7.04) compared to both simultaneously
copying the same signal from the same source. I don't have any axes to
grind - I'm just interested in results - and I use the best tools I
can find.

--- In oliviadata@yahoogroups.com, "Simon Brown" <simon.brown@...> wrote:
>
> I'm very surprised.
>
> FWIW DM780 uses Pavel's source without any improvements other than a
> re-write to use more standard C++ classes and remove the heavy
templating.
>
> Now DM780 samples at 48kHz decimated to 8kHz. If MultiPSK is using
11,025Hz
> and you are on W2K or XP then the reason for poor decoding could be
> soundcard calibration - the 11,025Hz signal being generated by a poor
> Windows driver which is now much, much better with VISTA.
>
> A reason for DM780 using 48kHz is that the data is returned from the
> soundcard at this rate without any need for modification. Some (most)
> soundcards cannot return 11,025Hz and this value is generated by
Windows by
> converting from 48, 96 or 44.1kHz. For playing Spice Girls and Britney
> Spears it's OK, for digital modes it is not - it can be up to 1% out.
>
> Simon Brown, HB9DRV
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "garylinnrobinson" <grobin1949@...>
> >
> > I decided to do a side-by-side receiving/decoding test with DM780
> > software (1806 beta) and MultiPSK 4.8 and found that DM780
> > consistently could decode very weak signals 80-90 pct. copy that
> > MultiPSK would only get 10pct or less of.
> >
>

I never said that MultiPSK's implementation was "not good" - but I did
say it was not all that good in decoding compared to DM780 - meaning
that it could be better. I used it for some time until I did a side by
side comparison and saw the very real significant difference. And I
was surprised. Run a side by side test and see what you get - do it on
very weak signals. It's easy to run both programs in just receive mode
on a computer that has a little horsepower to spare - would not
suggest doing it on a computer with less than 1ghz CPU and 512mb
memory, though.

--- In oliviadata@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" <andrewobrie@...>
wrote:
>
> I have used Olivia a lot using Multipsk and MixW with additional use
> of Olivia in the past few months using DM780.  I doubt the claims that
> Multipsk's implementation of Olivia is "not good".
>
> MFSK16 ,on the other hand, does appear to have a tough time sync'ing
> to the signal initially, in Multipsk .   DM780's MFSK seems to be much
> easier to sync.
>
> ANdy K3UK
>
> On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 7:10 AM, Waldis Jirgens <waldis@...> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I have heard for a long time, that Multipsk (any version) is not all
> > that crash hot in decoding Olivia. Also its MFSK16 protocol was
slightly
> > different from the standard one. It seems that Patrick has slipped
in an
> > Olivia "improvement" since v 4.7? Any comments Patrick?
> >
> > A few weeks ago I also had a problem with fldigi 2.10.3 on my pretty
> > slow (566 MHz) PC. DJ2UK reported that the Olivia signal looked
> > "asymmetrical" on his waterfall (he uses MixW) and the decodes were
> > poor. When I switched to gMFSK.hkj.53 all was well! gMFSK uses
> > noticeably less CPU resources than fldigi.
> >
> > --
> > 73: Waldis Jirgens - VK1WJ - http://mywebpage.netscape.com/ilgonis
> >
> > garylinnrobinson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I recently copied a QSO on 80mtrs (Olivia) where the one station said
> >> that Ollvia was almost as good as MFSK16 for decoding below the noise
> >> floor. I found this at odds to with both the tests I have done on
> >> UHF/VHF and HF - and on the air experiences. The fellow then
mentioned
> >> that he was using MultiPSK 4.8.
> >>
> >> I decided to do a side-by-side receiving/decoding test with DM780
> >> software (1806 beta) and MultiPSK 4.8 and found that DM780
> >> consistently could decode very weak signals 80-90 pct. copy that
> >> MultiPSK would only get 10pct or less of. I was surprised - but did
> >> the test on 40 meters and 30 meters several times with both programs
> >> running simultaneously on my 3ghz clone computer decoding the same
> >> signals and then comparing the accuracy. Numerous settings were
tried.
> >>
> >> I have also ran into at least 8 different stations running MultiPSK
> >> 4.7 or newer that I can't decode UNLESS I run MultiPSK 4.7 or later.
> >> DM780 won't decode them - FLDigi on Linux won't decode them. It's
> >> enough to make me wonder just what is going on with MultiPSK - I have
> >> never had a problem decoding earlier versions on Olivia with any
other
> >> program.
> >>
> >> I like MultiPSK for packet and ALE400 use but have stopped using it
> >> for Olivia because it just doesn't perform all that well on that
mode.
> >> and I can't recommend it to anyone for Olivia either.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Andy K3UK
> www.obriensweb.com
> (QSL via N2RJ)
>

Incidentally, if anyone else cares to run the same type of tests turn
off the squelch settings (or set to zero), of course for valid
results. All the programs decode well above the noise.

--- In oliviadata@yahoogroups.com, "garylinnrobinson" <grobin1949@...>
wrote:
>
> I never said that MultiPSK's implementation was "not good" - but I did
> say it was not all that good in decoding compared to DM780 - meaning
> that it could be better. I used it for some time until I did a side by
> side comparison and saw the very real significant difference. And I
> was surprised. Run a side by side test and see what you get - do it on
> very weak signals. It's easy to run both programs in just receive mode
> on a computer that has a little horsepower to spare - would not
> suggest doing it on a computer with less than 1ghz CPU and 512mb
> memory, though.
>
> --- In oliviadata@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" <andrewobrie@>
> wrote:
> >
> > I have used Olivia a lot using Multipsk and MixW with additional use
> > of Olivia in the past few months using DM780.  I doubt the claims that
> > Multipsk's implementation of Olivia is "not good".
> >
> > MFSK16 ,on the other hand, does appear to have a tough time sync'ing
> > to the signal initially, in Multipsk .   DM780's MFSK seems to be much
> > easier to sync.
> >
> > ANdy K3UK
> >
> > On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 7:10 AM, Waldis Jirgens <waldis@> wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I have heard for a long time, that Multipsk (any version) is not all
> > > that crash hot in decoding Olivia. Also its MFSK16 protocol was
> slightly
> > > different from the standard one. It seems that Patrick has slipped
> in an
> > > Olivia "improvement" since v 4.7? Any comments Patrick?
> > >
> > > A few weeks ago I also had a problem with fldigi 2.10.3 on my pretty
> > > slow (566 MHz) PC. DJ2UK reported that the Olivia signal looked
> > > "asymmetrical" on his waterfall (he uses MixW) and the decodes were
> > > poor. When I switched to gMFSK.hkj.53 all was well! gMFSK uses
> > > noticeably less CPU resources than fldigi.
> > >
> > > --
> > > 73: Waldis Jirgens - VK1WJ - http://mywebpage.netscape.com/ilgonis
> > >
> > > garylinnrobinson wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I recently copied a QSO on 80mtrs (Olivia) where the one
station said
> > >> that Ollvia was almost as good as MFSK16 for decoding below the
noise
> > >> floor. I found this at odds to with both the tests I have done on
> > >> UHF/VHF and HF - and on the air experiences. The fellow then
> mentioned
> > >> that he was using MultiPSK 4.8.
> > >>
> > >> I decided to do a side-by-side receiving/decoding test with DM780
> > >> software (1806 beta) and MultiPSK 4.8 and found that DM780
> > >> consistently could decode very weak signals 80-90 pct. copy that
> > >> MultiPSK would only get 10pct or less of. I was surprised - but did
> > >> the test on 40 meters and 30 meters several times with both
programs
> > >> running simultaneously on my 3ghz clone computer decoding the same
> > >> signals and then comparing the accuracy. Numerous settings were
> tried.
> > >>
> > >> I have also ran into at least 8 different stations running MultiPSK
> > >> 4.7 or newer that I can't decode UNLESS I run MultiPSK 4.7 or
later.
> > >> DM780 won't decode them - FLDigi on Linux won't decode them. It's
> > >> enough to make me wonder just what is going on with MultiPSK -
I have
> > >> never had a problem decoding earlier versions on Olivia with any
> other
> > >> program.
> > >>
> > >> I like MultiPSK for packet and ALE400 use but have stopped using it
> > >> for Olivia because it just doesn't perform all that well on that
> mode.
> > >> and I can't recommend it to anyone for Olivia either.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andy K3UK
> > www.obriensweb.com
> > (QSL via N2RJ)
> >
>

Hi Patrick

I am forwarding this mail from oliviadata@yahoogroups.com . There is a
discussion
going on about the olivia mode in  MultiPSK. I thought it could be of
interest for the group.

73 de LA5VNA Steinar



-------- Opprinnelig melding --------
Emne:     Re: [olivia] MultiPSK 4.8 doesn't decode all that great on Olivia
Dato:     Sat, 10 May 2008 13:56:04 +0000
Fra:     garylinnrobinson <grobin1949@...>
Svar-Til:     oliviadata@yahoogroups.com
Til:     oliviadata@yahoogroups.com


I have 4 computers - with WnxXP, Vista, Linux and other O.S.'s - I am
doing a comparison between MultiPSK, DM780, and FLDigi later this week
using multiple computers and listening to the same sound source and
will see what I get with that.

The reason I made the initial posting is because regardless of what
the reasons are - DM780 does decode a lot better than MultiPSK and I
am afraid that many people who use MultiPSK are inadvertently -
unfairly judging the Olivia mode by the results they are getting with it.

I urge others to do some side by side test on very weak signals - and
of course use at least a 1ghz or better computer. I use both programs
and was surprised at my own results. It should be interesting to see
what FLDigi does (on Kubuntu 7.04) compared to both simultaneously
copying the same signal from the same source. I don't have any axes to
grind - I'm just interested in results - and I use the best tools I
can find.

--- In oliviadata@yahoogroups.com, "Simon Brown" <simon.brown@...> wrote:
  >
  > I'm very surprised.
  >
  > FWIW DM780 uses Pavel's source without any improvements other than a
  > re-write to use more standard C++ classes and remove the heavy
templating.
  >
  > Now DM780 samples at 48kHz decimated to 8kHz. If MultiPSK is using
11,025Hz
  > and you are on W2K or XP then the reason for poor decoding could be
  > soundcard calibration - the 11,025Hz signal being generated by a poor
  > Windows driver which is now much, much better with VISTA.
  >
  > A reason for DM780 using 48kHz is that the data is returned from the
  > soundcard at this rate without any need for modification. Some (most)
  > soundcards cannot return 11,025Hz and this value is generated by
Windows by
  > converting from 48, 96 or 44.1kHz. For playing Spice Girls and Britney
  > Spears it's OK, for digital modes it is not - it can be up to 1% out.
  >
  > Simon Brown, HB9DRV
  >
  > --------------------------------------------------
  > From: "garylinnrobinson" <grobin1949@...>
  > >
  > > I decided to do a side-by-side receiving/decoding test with DM780
  > > software (1806 beta) and MultiPSK 4.8 and found that DM780
  > > consistently could decode very weak signals 80-90 pct. copy that
  > > MultiPSK would only get 10pct or less of.
  > >
  >

-------- Opprinnelig melding --------
Emne:     [olivia] MultiPSK 4.8 doesn't decode all that great on Olivia
Dato:     Sat, 10 May 2008 06:04:37 +0000
Fra:     garylinnrobinson <grobin1949@...>
Svar-Til:     oliviadata@yahoogroups.com
Til:     oliviadata@yahoogroups.com


I recently copied a QSO on 80mtrs (Olivia) where the one station said
that Ollvia was almost as good as MFSK16 for decoding below the noise
floor. I found this at odds to with both the tests I have done on
UHF/VHF and HF - and on the air experiences. The fellow then mentioned
that he was using MultiPSK 4.8.

I decided to do a side-by-side receiving/decoding test with DM780
software (1806 beta) and MultiPSK 4.8 and found that DM780
consistently could decode very weak signals 80-90 pct. copy that
MultiPSK would only get 10pct or less of. I was surprised - but did
the test on 40 meters and 30 meters several times with both programs
running simultaneously on my 3ghz clone computer decoding the same
signals and then comparing the accuracy. Numerous settings were tried.

I have also ran into at least 8 different stations running MultiPSK
4.7 or newer that I can't decode UNLESS I run MultiPSK 4.7 or later.
DM780 won't decode them - FLDigi on Linux won't decode them. It's
enough to make me wonder just what is going on with MultiPSK - I have
never had a problem decoding earlier versions on Olivia with any other
program.

I like MultiPSK for packet and ALE400 use but have stopped using it
for Olivia because it just doesn't perform all that well on that mode.
and I can't recommend it to anyone for Olivia either.


Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
Messages | Files | Photos
--
CQ Frequency Olivia 500/16 = 14076.4kHz (center)
OliviaData Group web site http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oliviadata
Olivia Frequencies and Information web site http://hflink.com/olivia/
To change message delivery: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oliviadata/join
To stop email, send an email to: oliviadata-nomail@yahoogroups.com
--

-

Hi Steinar,
And the rest,

Having a problem decoding Domino I thought maybe a similar problem, And
i am also interested in Olivia so i just installed the DM780,  which was
a part supposededbly of  Ham Radio Deluxe,
http://hrd.ham-radio.ch/downloads/downloads.htm

But don't seem to see where to run these odd modes.

suggestions?

Joe WB9SBD

Steinar Aanesland wrote:

>Hi Patrick
>
>I am forwarding this mail from oliviadata@yahoogroups.com . There is a
>discussion
>going on about the olivia mode in  MultiPSK. I thought it could be of
>interest for the group.
>
>73 de LA5VNA Steinar
>
>
>
>-------- Opprinnelig melding --------
>Emne:     Re: [olivia] MultiPSK 4.8 doesn't decode all that great on Olivia
>Dato:     Sat, 10 May 2008 13:56:04 +0000
>Fra:     garylinnrobinson <grobin1949@...>
>Svar-Til:     oliviadata@yahoogroups.com
>Til:     oliviadata@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>I have 4 computers - with WnxXP, Vista, Linux and other O.S.'s - I am
>doing a comparison between MultiPSK, DM780, and FLDigi later this week
>using multiple computers and listening to the same sound source and
>will see what I get with that.
>
>The reason I made the initial posting is because regardless of what
>the reasons are - DM780 does decode a lot better than MultiPSK and I
>am afraid that many people who use MultiPSK are inadvertently -
>unfairly judging the Olivia mode by the results they are getting with it.
>
>I urge others to do some side by side test on very weak signals - and
>of course use at least a 1ghz or better computer. I use both programs
>and was surprised at my own results. It should be interesting to see
>what FLDigi does (on Kubuntu 7.04) compared to both simultaneously
>copying the same signal from the same source. I don't have any axes to
>grind - I'm just interested in results - and I use the best tools I
>can find.
>
>--- In oliviadata@yahoogroups.com, "Simon Brown" <simon.brown@...> wrote:
> >
> > I'm very surprised.
> >
> > FWIW DM780 uses Pavel's source without any improvements other than a
> > re-write to use more standard C++ classes and remove the heavy
>templating.
> >
> > Now DM780 samples at 48kHz decimated to 8kHz. If MultiPSK is using
>11,025Hz
> > and you are on W2K or XP then the reason for poor decoding could be
> > soundcard calibration - the 11,025Hz signal being generated by a poor
> > Windows driver which is now much, much better with VISTA.
> >
> > A reason for DM780 using 48kHz is that the data is returned from the
> > soundcard at this rate without any need for modification. Some (most)
> > soundcards cannot return 11,025Hz and this value is generated by
>Windows by
> > converting from 48, 96 or 44.1kHz. For playing Spice Girls and Britney
> > Spears it's OK, for digital modes it is not - it can be up to 1% out.
> >
> > Simon Brown, HB9DRV
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > From: "garylinnrobinson" <grobin1949@...>
> > >
> > > I decided to do a side-by-side receiving/decoding test with DM780
> > > software (1806 beta) and MultiPSK 4.8 and found that DM780
> > > consistently could decode very weak signals 80-90 pct. copy that
> > > MultiPSK would only get 10pct or less of.
> > >
> >
>
>-------- Opprinnelig melding --------
>Emne:     [olivia] MultiPSK 4.8 doesn't decode all that great on Olivia
>Dato:     Sat, 10 May 2008 06:04:37 +0000
>Fra:     garylinnrobinson <grobin1949@...>
>Svar-Til:     oliviadata@yahoogroups.com
>Til:     oliviadata@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>I recently copied a QSO on 80mtrs (Olivia) where the one station said
>that Ollvia was almost as good as MFSK16 for decoding below the noise
>floor. I found this at odds to with both the tests I have done on
>UHF/VHF and HF - and on the air experiences. The fellow then mentioned
>that he was using MultiPSK 4.8.
>
>I decided to do a side-by-side receiving/decoding test with DM780
>software (1806 beta) and MultiPSK 4.8 and found that DM780
>consistently could decode very weak signals 80-90 pct. copy that
>MultiPSK would only get 10pct or less of. I was surprised - but did
>the test on 40 meters and 30 meters several times with both programs
>running simultaneously on my 3ghz clone computer decoding the same
>signals and then comparing the accuracy. Numerous settings were tried.
>
>I have also ran into at least 8 different stations running MultiPSK
>4.7 or newer that I can't decode UNLESS I run MultiPSK 4.7 or later.
>DM780 won't decode them - FLDigi on Linux won't decode them. It's
>enough to make me wonder just what is going on with MultiPSK - I have
>never had a problem decoding earlier versions on Olivia with any other
>program.
>
>I like MultiPSK for packet and ALE400 use but have stopped using it
>for Olivia because it just doesn't perform all that well on that mode.
>and I can't recommend it to anyone for Olivia either.
>
>
>Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
>Messages | Files | Photos
>--
>CQ Frequency Olivia 500/16 = 14076.4kHz (center)
>OliviaData Group web site http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oliviadata
>Olivia Frequencies and Information web site http://hflink.com/olivia/
>To change message delivery: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oliviadata/join
>To stop email, send an email to: oliviadata-nomail@yahoogroups.com
>--
>
>-
>
>------------------------------------
>
>--
>CQ Frequency Olivia 500/16 = 14076.4kHz (center)
>OliviaData Group web site http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oliviadata
>Olivia Frequencies and Information web site http://hflink.com/olivia/
>To change message delivery: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oliviadata/join
>To stop email, send an email to: oliviadata-nomail@yahoogroups.com
>--
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>.
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You need the latest beta:
http://www.ham-radio.ch/kits/beta/3.5/1833/HRDv035b1833_Full.exe

Version 4.0 will be released at Dayton, more info:
http://www.ham-radio-deluxe.com/Downloads/tabid/54/Default.aspx

Simon Brown, HB9DRV

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Joe" <nss@...>
>
> Having a problem decoding Domino I thought maybe a similar problem, And
> i am also interested in Olivia so i just installed the DM780,  which was
> a part supposededbly of  Ham Radio Deluxe,
> http://hrd.ham-radio.ch/downloads/downloads.htm
>

You need the latest beta: http://www.ham-radio.ch/kits/beta/3.5/1833/HRDv035b1833_Full.exe
Version 4.0 will be released at Dayton, more info: http://www.ham-radio-deluxe.com/Downloads/tabid/54/Default.aspx
Simon Brown, HB9DRV
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Joe" <nss@...>

Having a problem decoding Domino I thought maybe a similar problem, And
i am also interested in Olivia so i just installed the DM780, which was
a part supposededbly of Ham Radio Deluxe,
http://hrd.ham-radio.ch/downloads/downloads.htm

 ------------------------------------
--
CQ Frequency Olivia 500/16 = 14076.4kHz (center)
OliviaData Group web site http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oliviadata Olivia Frequencies and Information web site http://hflink.com/olivia/
To change message delivery: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oliviadata/join To stop email, send an email to: oliviadata-nomail@yahoogroups.com
--
.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oliviadata/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oliviadata/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:oliviadata-digest@yahoogroups.com mailto:oliviadata-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
oliviadata-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

I didn't do my comparison's on MixW and Olivia Aid -  I did them with
DM780 and just recently FLDigi on a separate computer but same sound
feed from transceiver since FLDigi is on Linux. Same results.

You can say it's just Gary but I don't believe it. And it is doesn't
apply to PSK or RTTY they work abt the same on all the progs.

If I have to own a special computer or special soundcard or do some
special soundcard alignment that I haven't already done - too many
hoops for the regular user let alone a guy who has worked in the
computer industry as a tech and programmer as I have.


--- In oliviadata@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland <saanes@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, am QSYing this answer from Patrick
>
> 73 de LA5VNA Steinar
>
>
>
>
> -------- Opprinnelig melding --------
> Emne:     Re: [multipsk] [Fwd: [olivia] MultiPSK 4.8 doesn't decode all
> that great on Olivia]
> Dato:     Mon, 12 May 2008 19:32:14 +0200
> Fra:     Patrick Lindecker <f6cte@...>
> Svar-Til:     multipsk@yahoogroups.com
> Til:     multipsk@yahoogroups.com
> Referanser:     <48286E9C.1080905@...>
>
> *
> Hello Steinar,
>
> Here is some extracts to the answer I've done to Waldis (VK1WJ) who
> transfers me the message.*
>
>  >> I have also ran into at least 8 different stations running MultiPSK
>  >> 4.7 or newer that I can't decode UNLESS I run MultiPSK 4.7 or later.
> *I tried here generating Olivia 32-1000 towards an old Multipsk
version and
> Mixw...no problem. This is logical as there was no modification on
Olivia
> for some versions (however a regression error is always possible).*
>
>  >> I decided to do a side-by-side receiving/decoding test with DM780
>  >> software (1806 beta) and MultiPSK 4.8 and found that DM780
>  >> consistently could decode very weak signals 80-90 pct. copy that
>  >> MultiPSK would only get 10pct or less of. I was surprised - but did
> I* tried here comparing Mixw, Multipsk and OliviaAid with a very noisy
> transmission: the decodings are more or less equivalent (Multipsk being
> slightly better and OliviaAid slightly worse with a relatively important
> decoding delay). The sound card speed calibration was the same for
every
> softs.
> However, I tested on gaussian noise, when real conditions could be
> different from a gaussian noise
> and so the results different. Moreover, Olivia Aid has a 8000 Hz
> sampling frequency (not 11025 as
>  Multipsk).
> *
> *Note: some programs are not compatible under the same PC. For
example, in
> ALE, PCAle refuses to decode properly if Multipsk is present
(because the
> sound card speed seen by PCALe seems modified but I ignore the exact
> reason).
>
> I think the decoding's problem of Gary must probably be linked to a
sound
> card speed calibration (button "Sampling freq." and follow the
instructions)
> or perhaps the level is really very low.
> If it keeps on failing, Gary must check that the button "Freq.
search" is
> pushed (to have an equivalent to Mixw or OliviaAid) . If it keeps on
> failing, let's Gary contact me or better the Multipsk group. A good
thing
> would be to send me a record file (at 11025 samples/sec, 8 bits, mono)
> recording a phase when Multipsk decodes badly. I will check why.
> As I tested previously thanks to this group, the 48 KHz sampling speed
> is in general
> very good (my poor on-board becomes excellent),
> but it is, unfortunatly, not a general case (I hoped so).
>
> So without any calibration, the probability to have an initial
excellent
> calibration at 48 Kz
> is very good (much more that at 11025 samples/s), but it is not perfect
> either. So in any case,
> it is important to calbrate the sound card, moreover in Olivia.
>
> Steinar, you can QSY this message to the Olivia Yahoo group, if you
want.
>
> 73
> Patrick*
>
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: Steinar Aanesland
>     To: multipsk@yahoogroups.com ; oliviadata@yahoogroups.com
>     Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 6:21 PM
>     Subject: [multipsk] [Fwd: [olivia] MultiPSK 4.8 doesn't decode all
> that great on Olivia]
>
>
>     Hi Patrick
>
>     I am forwarding this mail from oliviadata@yahoogroups.com .
There is a
>     discussion
>     going on about the olivia mode in MultiPSK. I thought it could be of
>     interest for the group.
>
>     73 de LA5VNA Steinar
>
>     -------- Opprinnelig melding --------
>     Emne: Re: [olivia] MultiPSK 4.8 doesn't decode all that great on
Olivia
>     Dato: Sat, 10 May 2008 13:56:04 +0000
>     Fra: garylinnrobinson <grobin1949@...>
>     Svar-Til: oliviadata@yahoogroups.com
>     Til: oliviadata@yahoogroups.com
>
>     I have 4 computers - with WnxXP, Vista, Linux and other O.S.'s -
I am
>     doing a comparison between MultiPSK, DM780, and FLDigi later
this week
>     using multiple computers and listening to the same sound source and
>     will see what I get with that.
>
>     The reason I made the initial posting is because regardless of what
>     the reasons are - DM780 does decode a lot better than MultiPSK and I
>     am afraid that many people who use MultiPSK are inadvertently -
>     unfairly judging the Olivia mode by the results they are getting
> with it.
>
>     I urge others to do some side by side test on very weak signals
- and
>     of course use at least a 1ghz or better computer. I use both
programs
>     and was surprised at my own results. It should be interesting to see
>     what FLDigi does (on Kubuntu 7.04) compared to both simultaneously
>     copying the same signal from the same source. I don't have any
axes to
>     grind - I'm just interested in results - and I use the best tools I
>     can find.
>
>     --- In oliviadata@yahoogroups.com, "Simon Brown" <simon.brown@>
> wrote:
>     >
>     > I'm very surprised.
>     >
>     > FWIW DM780 uses Pavel's source without any improvements other
than a
>     > re-write to use more standard C++ classes and remove the heavy
>     templating.
>     >
>     > Now DM780 samples at 48kHz decimated to 8kHz. If MultiPSK is using
>     11,025Hz
>     > and you are on W2K or XP then the reason for poor decoding
could be
>     > soundcard calibration - the 11,025Hz signal being generated by
a poor
>     > Windows driver which is now much, much better with VISTA.
>     >
>     > A reason for DM780 using 48kHz is that the data is returned
from the
>     > soundcard at this rate without any need for modification. Some
(most)
>     > soundcards cannot return 11,025Hz and this value is generated by
>     Windows by
>     > converting from 48, 96 or 44.1kHz. For playing Spice Girls and
Britney
>     > Spears it's OK, for digital modes it is not - it can be up to
1% out.
>     >
>     > Simon Brown, HB9DRV
>     >
>     > --------------------------------------------------
>     > From: "garylinnrobinson" <grobin1949@>
>     > >
>     > > I decided to do a side-by-side receiving/decoding test with
DM780
>     > > software (1806 beta) and MultiPSK 4.8 and found that DM780
>     > > consistently could decode very weak signals 80-90 pct. copy that
>     > > MultiPSK would only get 10pct or less of.
>     > >
>     >
>
>     -------- Opprinnelig melding --------
>     Emne: [olivia] MultiPSK 4.8 doesn't decode all that great on Olivia
>     Dato: Sat, 10 May 2008 06:04:37 +0000
>     Fra: garylinnrobinson <grobin1949@...>
>     Svar-Til: oliviadata@yahoogroups.com
>     Til: oliviadata@yahoogroups.com
>
>     I recently copied a QSO on 80mtrs (Olivia) where the one station
said
>     that Ollvia was almost as good as MFSK16 for decoding below the
noise
>     floor. I found this at odds to with both the tests I have done on
>     UHF/VHF and HF - and on the air experiences. The fellow then
mentioned
>     that he was using MultiPSK 4.8.
>
>     I decided to do a side-by-side receiving/decoding test with DM780
>     software (1806 beta) and MultiPSK 4.8 and found that DM780
>     consistently could decode very weak signals 80-90 pct. copy that
>     MultiPSK would only get 10pct or less of. I was surprised - but did
>     the test on 40 meters and 30 meters several times with both programs
>     running simultaneously on my 3ghz clone computer decoding the same
>     signals and then comparing the accuracy. Numerous settings were
tried.
>
>     I have also ran into at least 8 different stations running MultiPSK
>     4.7 or newer that I can't decode UNLESS I run MultiPSK 4.7 or later.
>     DM780 won't decode them - FLDigi on Linux won't decode them. It's
>     enough to make me wonder just what is going on with MultiPSK - I
have
>     never had a problem decoding earlier versions on Olivia with any
other
>     program.
>
>     I like MultiPSK for packet and ALE400 use but have stopped using it
>     for Olivia because it just doesn't perform all that well on that
mode.
>     and I can't recommend it to anyone for Olivia either.
>
>     Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
>     Messages | Files | Photos
>     --
>     CQ Frequency Olivia 500/16 = 14076.4kHz (center)
>     OliviaData Group web site http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oliviadata
>     Olivia Frequencies and Information web site
http://hflink.com/olivia/
>     To change message delivery:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oliviadata/join
>     To stop email, send an email to: oliviadata-nomail@yahoogroups.com
>     --
>
>     -
>
>
> Messages in this topic (2) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
> Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members |
Calendar
> Yahoo! Groups
> Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
> Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch
> format to Traditional
> Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
> Recent Activity
>

garylinnrobinson wrote:

> I didn't do my comparison's on MixW and Olivia Aid -  I did them with
> DM780 and just recently FLDigi on a separate computer but same sound
> feed from transceiver since FLDigi is on Linux. Same results.
>
> You can say it's just Gary but I don't believe it. And it is doesn't
> apply to PSK or RTTY they work abt the same on all the progs.
>
> If I have to own a special computer or special soundcard or do some
> special soundcard alignment that I haven't already done - too many
> hoops for the regular user let alone a guy who has worked in the
> computer industry as a tech and programmer as I have.

There are several factors to consider in order to achieve a fair
relative evaluation, and I am sure you know with your claimed background.

First, with the data you have at hand could you achieve a quantitative
evaluation? As Lord Kelvin stated a long time ago, in science and
engineering you actually need numbers to avoid fuzziness. To dissipate
doubts, it could be useful if you could also provide your data sets for
independent evaluation.

Second, are your two computers identical? Same sound card, processor,
speed, memory, you certainly wouldn't need to be told all the factors to
weigh.

Third, as I understand, the "AC97 timing syndrome" only happens on
Windows. On Linux and Unix derivatives, queues, semaphores, etc, have
different priorities, and so far, Linux fares better with "run of the
mill" soundcards and associated delays, even when that does not make
differences insignificant, for many reasons, not related exclusively to
timing. Signal levels, distortion, noise, A/D and D/A converters
linearity, Hamming distances of different modulation formats, FEC, data
interleaving are also important factors and certainly have an influence
on received BER.

Something that would be quite peculiar, if proven true, is that all
modes show exactly the same problems. It seems important to sort out
this particular allegged behavior with valid data to substantiate it.

Linux certainly could give an edge to FLDigi, which is, in fact, also a
good performer. It might be interesting to evaluate also GMFSK or other
available programs, for sake of completeness.

I feel that the last paragraph of your posting above is particularly
unfair. In many aspects of life, there exist well known
price/performance tradeoffs, be clothing, cars, CPU's, soundcards, just
to mention a few well known and some relevant ones. When the multimode
boxes were predominant, there were designs and brands that were
undoubtedly superior to others.

I believe that it is a formidable feat to achieve a similar perforance
between dedicated boxes with single tasking processors and computers
with multiple running tasks on a multitasking or task switching
environment like Windows, at the cost it gets achieved.

I have not made any well documented comparisons myself previously, and I
am using an average card for receiving, an Audigy 2, which is not a
Delta, an EMU, or a higher cost cousin, but neither an AC97. So far, I
have not found substantial differences between MultiPSK and MixW, before
I began using MultiPSK almost exclusively when versions 4.xx appeared.
My soundcard does not require a noticeably different setting from its
default.

Nevertheless, hardware differences may be so many among users, and
behaviors under different OS versions that an independent developer
cannot evaluate all possible influences without the beta testers and
users feedback. Other programs I also use corroborate such a situation.
I believe that all users could certainly gain with a fair evaluation
that unveils problems that a developer alone cannot certainly find.

73,

Jose, CO2JA

Jose A. Amador wrote:
> garylinnrobinson wrote:
>
>
>> I didn't do my comparison's on MixW and Olivia Aid -  I did them with
>> DM780 and just recently FLDigi on a separate computer but same sound
>> feed from transceiver since FLDigi is on Linux. Same results.
>>
>> You can say it's just Gary but I don't believe it. And it is doesn't
>> apply to PSK or RTTY they work abt the same on all the progs.
>>
>> If I have to own a special computer or special soundcard or do some
>> special soundcard alignment that I haven't already done - too many
>> hoops for the regular user let alone a guy who has worked in the
>> computer industry as a tech and programmer as I have.
>>
>
> There are several factors to consider in order to achieve a fair
> relative evaluation, and I am sure you know with your claimed background.
>
> First, with the data you have at hand could you achieve a quantitative
> evaluation? As Lord Kelvin stated a long time ago, in science and
> engineering you actually need numbers to avoid fuzziness. To dissipate
> doubts, it could be useful if you could also provide your data sets for
> independent evaluation.
>
> Second, are your two computers identical? Same sound card, processor,
> speed, memory, you certainly wouldn't need to be told all the factors to
> weigh.
>
> Third, as I understand, the "AC97 timing syndrome" only happens on
> Windows. On Linux and Unix derivatives, queues, semaphores, etc, have
> different priorities, and so far, Linux fares better with "run of the
> mill" soundcards and associated delays, even when that does not make
> differences insignificant, for many reasons, not related exclusively to
> timing. Signal levels, distortion, noise, A/D and D/A converters
> linearity, Hamming distances of different modulation formats, FEC, data
> interleaving are also important factors and certainly have an influence
> on received BER.
>
> Something that would be quite peculiar, if proven true, is that all
> modes show exactly the same problems. It seems important to sort out
> this particular allegged behavior with valid data to substantiate it.
>
> Linux certainly could give an edge to FLDigi, which is, in fact, also a
> good performer. It might be interesting to evaluate also GMFSK or other
> available programs, for sake of completeness.
>
> I feel that the last paragraph of your posting above is particularly
> unfair. In many aspects of life, there exist well known
> price/performance tradeoffs, be clothing, cars, CPU's, soundcards, just
> to mention a few well known and some relevant ones. When the multimode
> boxes were predominant, there were designs and brands that were
> undoubtedly superior to others.
>
> I believe that it is a formidable feat to achieve a similar perforance
> between dedicated boxes with single tasking processors and computers
> with multiple running tasks on a multitasking or task switching
> environment like Windows, at the cost it gets achieved.
>
> I have not made any well documented comparisons myself previously, and I
> am using an average card for receiving, an Audigy 2, which is not a
> Delta, an EMU, or a higher cost cousin, but neither an AC97. So far, I
> have not found substantial differences between MultiPSK and MixW, before
> I began using MultiPSK almost exclusively when versions 4.xx appeared.
> My soundcard does not require a noticeably different setting from its
> default.
>
> Nevertheless, hardware differences may be so many among users, and
> behaviors under different OS versions that an independent developer
> cannot evaluate all possible influences without the beta testers and
> users feedback. Other programs I also use corroborate such a situation.
> I believe that all users could certainly gain with a fair evaluation
> that unveils problems that a developer alone cannot certainly find.
>
> 73,
>
> Jose, CO2JA
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> --
> CQ Frequency Olivia 500/16 = 14076.4kHz (center)
> OliviaData Group web site http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oliviadata
> Olivia Frequencies and Information web site http://hflink.com/olivia/
> To change message delivery: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oliviadata/join
> To stop email, send an email to: oliviadata-nomail@yahoogroups.com
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
     Hi Jose, I live in New Mexico USA and have a TH6DXX beam at 60 feet.
I use Linux and use the GMFSK software. I do not know how the comparison
your talking about was done but if it does not include QSB and noise
from our bands at this sunspot minimum then it is suspect.

     I worked Spain yesterday at 2200Z on 20 meters CW. The S meter said
he was around 579. So the band is not bad. This is afternoon here.

     My soundcard is on my motherboard. I have good success with BPSK on
20 and 40 meters. Be glad to talk with someone on Olivia or whatever if
you want to run a test.


Karl


--

	 Karl F. Larsen, AKA K5DI
	 Linux User
	 #450462   http://counter.li.org.
    PGP 4208 4D6E 595F 22B9 FF1C  ECB6 4A3C 2C54 FE23 53A7

I didn't start out to prove anything but my results were clear and
quantitative. On all 4 of my computers with settings optimized and
sound cards aligned properly MultiPSK did not perform as well as DM780
or FLDigi on Olivia modes.

It is easy and convenient to pass it off as "operator" error or
inexperience. Easy to come up with other reasons too - many of which
may be valid - but the bottom line - if users have to jump through too
many hoops just to get even - they won't. Unfortunately many may not
even be aware they are using a program that is under performing on
their computer and instead blame the MODE.

I strongly urge ANYONE and EVERYONE to perform tests themselves for
their OWN hardware and use what works best. Don't take it for granted
that all programs work as well as others on all modes. And in the end
excuses and/or opinions won't matter.

--- In oliviadata@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <amador@...> wrote:
>
> garylinnrobinson wrote:
>
> > I didn't do my comparison's on MixW and Olivia Aid -  I did them with
> > DM780 and just recently FLDigi on a separate computer but same sound
> > feed from transceiver since FLDigi is on Linux. Same results.
> >
> > You can say it's just Gary but I don't believe it. And it is doesn't
> > apply to PSK or RTTY they work abt the same on all the progs.
> >
> > If I have to own a special computer or special soundcard or do some
> > special soundcard alignment that I haven't already done - too many
> > hoops for the regular user let alone a guy who has worked in the
> > computer industry as a tech and programmer as I have.
>
> There are several factors to consider in order to achieve a fair
> relative evaluation, and I am sure you know with your claimed
background.
>
> First, with the data you have at hand could you achieve a quantitative
> evaluation? As Lord Kelvin stated a long time ago, in science and
> engineering you actually need numbers to avoid fuzziness. To dissipate
> doubts, it could be useful if you could also provide your data sets for
> independent evaluation.
>
> Second, are your two computers identical? Same sound card, processor,
> speed, memory, you certainly wouldn't need to be told all the
factors to
> weigh.
>
> Third, as I understand, the "AC97 timing syndrome" only happens on
> Windows. On Linux and Unix derivatives, queues, semaphores, etc, have
> different priorities, and so far, Linux fares better with "run of the
> mill" soundcards and associated delays, even when that does not make
> differences insignificant, for many reasons, not related exclusively to
> timing. Signal levels, distortion, noise, A/D and D/A converters
> linearity, Hamming distances of different modulation formats, FEC, data
> interleaving are also important factors and certainly have an influence
> on received BER.
>
> Something that would be quite peculiar, if proven true, is that all
> modes show exactly the same problems. It seems important to sort out
> this particular allegged behavior with valid data to substantiate it.
>
> Linux certainly could give an edge to FLDigi, which is, in fact, also a
> good performer. It might be interesting to evaluate also GMFSK or other
> available programs, for sake of completeness.
>
> I feel that the last paragraph of your posting above is particularly
> unfair. In many aspects of life, there exist well known
> price/performance tradeoffs, be clothing, cars, CPU's, soundcards, just
> to mention a few well known and some relevant ones. When the multimode
> boxes were predominant, there were designs and brands that were
> undoubtedly superior to others.
>
> I believe that it is a formidable feat to achieve a similar perforance
> between dedicated boxes with single tasking processors and computers
> with multiple running tasks on a multitasking or task switching
> environment like Windows, at the cost it gets achieved.
>
> I have not made any well documented comparisons myself previously,
and I
> am using an average card for receiving, an Audigy 2, which is not a
> Delta, an EMU, or a higher cost cousin, but neither an AC97. So far, I
> have not found substantial differences between MultiPSK and MixW,
before
> I began using MultiPSK almost exclusively when versions 4.xx appeared.
> My soundcard does not require a noticeably different setting from its
> default.
>
> Nevertheless, hardware differences may be so many among users, and
> behaviors under different OS versions that an independent developer
> cannot evaluate all possible influences without the beta testers and
> users feedback. Other programs I also use corroborate such a situation.
> I believe that all users could certainly gain with a fair evaluation
> that unveils problems that a developer alone cannot certainly find.
>
> 73,
>
> Jose, CO2JA
>

garylinnrobinson wrote:

> I didn't start out to prove anything but my results were clear and
> quantitative. On all 4 of my computers with settings optimized and
> sound cards aligned properly MultiPSK did not perform as well as DM780
> or FLDigi on Olivia modes.

> It is easy and convenient to pass it off as "operator" error or
> inexperience. Easy to come up with other reasons too - many of which
> may be valid - but the bottom line - if users have to jump through too
> many hoops just to get even - they won't. Unfortunately many may not
> even be aware they are using a program that is under performing on
> their computer and instead blame the MODE.

Well, one difficulty that has been pointed out is that it is not easy to
identify the many possible parameter variants, and a sub-standard setup
will make it certainly harder to identify. I am a believer that Olivia
deserves more popularity than MFSK, but it seems to be happening the
other way around.

> I strongly urge ANYONE and EVERYONE to perform tests themselves for
> their OWN hardware and use what works best. Don't take it for granted
> that all programs work as well as others on all modes. And in the end
> excuses and/or opinions won't matter.

I think it is fair. I have not engaged in doing it myself, but will try
to make some comparative captures and rate them later when time allows.

Patrick, F6CTE ran a series of tests sampling at 48 kHz, but there was
not any clear adventage among the responses he received regarding 48 kHz
   to be "the magic solution".


73,

Jose, CO2JA