Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [BPQ32] Re: 9600 baud packet instability

Expand Messages
  • Mike
    I use a Kantronics 9612 with a 19200 Baud serial link, the serial link must be Higher then the Radio speed. I modified a Motorola Syntor UHF 55 watt radio for
    Message 1 of 23 , Nov 15, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I use a Kantronics 9612 with a 19200 Baud serial link, the serial link
      must be
      Higher then the Radio speed.

      I modified a Motorola Syntor UHF 55 watt radio for 9600 BUAD
      Paclen 236, Maxframe 2, Frack 3000, response 1000, TXD 150

      Many radios that claim to be 9600 BUAD have a very slow turn around time
      TX/RX many are higher then 300ms Alinco happens to be one of those
      radios

      The only radio I have seen with a good turn around time is the Kenwood
      2K
      It is always good idea to look at the ARRL test specs.

      The data cable usually has one connection for 1200 Baud and 1 for 9600
      Baud,
      As well as the radio settings, the radio needs to have a very flat
      response
      For FSK transmission, do not use the Mic plug as a FSK connection
      It will never work.

      Hope this is some help.

      73

      Mike N9PMO
      BPQ32 Group Moderator
      www.n9pmo.com
      -----Original Message-----
      From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
      k1jtc
      Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 12:30 PM
      To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [BPQ32] Re: 9600 baud packet instability

       
      What rig or rigs are people using for 9600 packet?

      --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff - WA4ZKO" <wa4zko@...> wrote:
      >
      > Alinco DR-235's are very marginal radios for 9.6k. The ARRL Lab BER
      testing for them reveals the problem.
      >
      > You can probably pull your PACLEN back to 64 or 32 and see a small
      improvement in terms of retries at a cost of reduced throughput. You
      might do a bit better with a TNC that uses a true G3RUH modem, but I
      suspect you are fighting an uphill battle with a marginal radio for 9.6k
      (regardless of how it's advertised).
      >
      > The DR-235 (and DR-435) rigs are good for 1200 baud, but horrid for
      9600 baud. If this is a backbone link (no users) you will do far better
      just running 1200 baud and opening up the parms (paclen, maxframe, ect).
      >
      > As others have said deviation is important, but unless you are using
      older or modified radios with "wider" filters you will probably find the
      9.6k sweet spot on newer gear is around 2.8KHz peak deviation. Make sure
      your meter can show/measure peak deviation.
      >
      >
      > 73
      > Jeff
      > WA4ZKO
      > "Packet Radio never died, it just evolved."
      > http://twitter.com/wa4zko
      >
      >
      > --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups.com, "k1jtc" <jeffrey.t.clark@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Rather than reply to all I will post all replies here. I am running
      alinco 235. I have 2 radios sitting in the same room. From what I
      understand the KPC 9612 only supports 9600 baud on the com port so that
      is the highest speed to go to the computer. Am I wrong? S meter readings
      are full scale in the room as well as when I try across the city. The
      radios are identical except the one that is not hooked to the bbs has
      the internal tnc option.
      > >
      > > --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups.com, "N9ACQ" <n9acq@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Jeff
      > > >
      > > > The biggest problem with 9600 is deviation. Both ends should
      > > > be around 3 Khz. 9600 also need to bypass all audio amplifiers and
      filters
      > > > on both transmit and receive. A deviation meter really is needed
      to set the
      > > > proper audio level to the radio. The other thing is what is the S
      meter
      > > > reading on receive?
      > > >
      > > > 73 Bill
      > > >
      > > > N9ACQ
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • N9ACQ
      Mike Mic plugs work for 1200. I used a TR-7930 for years that way. One suggestion for TNC connections to 6 pin mini-din. Use the 9600 baud pin and set radio
      Message 2 of 23 , Nov 15, 2012
      • 0 Attachment

        Mike

                        Mic plugs work for 1200. I used a TR-7930 for years that way.  One suggestion for TNC connections to 6 pin mini-din. Use the 9600 baud pin and set radio t0 9600 capability. Then radio is useable for either 1200 or 9600 without changes.

        73 Bill

        N9ACQ

      • Mike
        Yes the Mic. Plus will work for AFSK, but not FSK (9600 Baud) Mike N9PMO www.n9pmo.com ... From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
        Message 3 of 23 , Nov 15, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Yes the Mic. Plus will work for AFSK, but not FSK (9600 Baud)

          Mike N9PMO
          www.n9pmo.com
          -----Original Message-----
          From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
          N9ACQ
          Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 1:15 PM
          To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: 9600 baud packet instability

           
          Mike
                          Mic plugs work for 1200. I used a TR-7930 for years that
          way.  One suggestion for TNC connections to 6 pin mini-din. Use the 9600
          baud pin and set radio t0 9600 capability. Then radio is useable for
          either 1200 or 9600 without changes.
          73 Bill
          N9ACQ
        • Bob Unger
          Jerry, I am gloing to put some jupdates to this and get it back to you asap.  hope it works better.... 73 de Bob ________________________________ From: Jerry
          Message 4 of 23 , Nov 15, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Jerry, I am gloing to put some jupdates to this and get it back to you asap.  hope it works better....
             
            73 de Bob

            From: Jerry <n9lya@...>
            To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 5:39 PM
            Subject: RE: [BPQ32] 9600 baud packet instability
             
            Ill look yours over more in morning… But here are mine I use a KPC9612 as well mine feeds an Icom 38A
             
            Have you adjusted your TX audio and equalization in the TNC…??? 73 Jerry N9LYA
             
            PORT                                     ; 220 Meter Emcom FREQ.
            PORTNUM=9                    ; Optional but sets port number if stated
            ID=9600 223.600 MHz    ; Displayed by PORTS command
            TYPE=ASYNC                     ; Port is RS232 Com
            PROTOCOL=KISS                             ; TNC is used in KISS mode
            FULLDUP=0                       ; Only meaningful for KISS devices
            IOADDR=C                         ; 1 = SERIAL PORT COM1 ETC.
            SPEED=9600                      ; RS232 COM PORT SPEED
            CHANNEL=B                      ; A for single channel TNC, A or B for multichannel
            PERSIST=64                        ; PERSIST=256/(# of transmitters-1)
            SLOTTIME=100                 ; CMSA interval timer in milliseconds
            TXDELAY=300                    ; Transmit keyup delay in milliseconds
            TXTAIL=0                            ; TX key down, in milliseconds, at packet end;
            QUALITY=192                    ; Quality factor applied to node broadcasts heard on
                                                            ; this port, unless overridden by a locked route
                                                            ; entry. Setting to 0 stops node broadcasts
            MINQUAL=95                   ; Entries in the nodes table with qualities greater or
                                                            ; equal to MINQUAL will be sent on this port. A value
                                                            ; of 0 sends everything.
            MAXFRAME=2                 ; Max outstanding frames (1 thru 7)
            FRACK=5000                      ; Level 2 timout in milliseconds
            RESPTIME=1000                               ; Level 2 delayed ack timer in milliseconds
            RETRIES=10                        ; Level 2 maximum retry value
            PACLEN=236                     ; Default max packet length for this port
            UNPROTO=Nodes:                         ; BTEXT broadcast addrs format: DEST[,digi1[,digi2]]
            BCALL=n9lya-7                 ; BTEXT call. unstated defaults to APPL1CALL
            L3ONLY=0                           ; 1=No user downlink connects on this port
            DIGIFLAG=1                      ; Digipeat: 0=OFF, 1=ALL, 255=UI Only
            DIGIPORT=0                      ; Port on which to send digi'd frames (0 = same port)
            USERS=0                             ; Maximum number of L2 sessions, 0 = no limit
            WL2KREPORT PUBLIC, http://www.winlink.org/, 8778, K9BBS-10, EM68SR, 00-23, 223600000, PKT9600, 65, 35, 5, 0
            ENDPORT
             
            From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of k1jtc
            Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 5:32 PM
            To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [BPQ32] 9600 baud packet instability
             
             
            We are having problems with consistent connects using outpost. When using hyperterminal it connects better but still retries muliple times. Below are the settings that I have in the config file. I am using a kantronics 9612. Any suggestions to make it more stable would be greatly appreciated.

            PORT
            PORTNUM=1 ; Optional but sets port number if stated
            ID=BBS 223.520 MHz ; Displayed by PORTS command
            TYPE=ASYNC ; Port is RS232 Com
            PROTOCOL=KISS ; TNC is used in KISS (or JKISS) mode
            ; See ..\RelatedFiles\KissRoms\KissRoms.zip.
            FULLDUP=0 ; Only meaningful for KISS (or JKISS) devices
            IOADDR=1 ; 1 = SERIAL PORT COM1 ETC.
            SPEED=9600 ; RS232 COM PORT SPEED
            CHANNEL=B ; A for single channel TNC, A or B for multichannel
            PERSIST=64 ; PERSIST=256/(# of transmitters-1)
            SLOTTIME=50 ; CMSA interval timer in milliseconds
            TXDELAY=300 ; Transmit keyup delay in milliseconds
            TXTAIL=30 ; TX key down, in milliseconds, at packet end
            QUALITY=125 ; Quality factor applied to node broadcasts heard on
            ; this port, unless overridden by a locked route
            ; entry. Setting to 0 stops node broadcasts
            MINQUAL=0 ; Entries in the nodes table with qualities greater or
            ; equal to MINQUAL will be sent on this port. A value
            ; of 0 sends everything.
            MAXFRAME=4 ; Max outstanding frames (1 thru 7)
            FRACK=5000 ; Level 2 timout in milliseconds
            RESPTIME=1000 ; Level 2 delayed ack timer in milliseconds
            RETRIES=5 ; Level 2 maximum retry value
            PACLEN=125 ; Default max packet length for this port
            UNPROTO=ANTBBS ; BTEXT broadcast addrs format: DEST[,digi1[,digi2]]
            BCALL=K1JTC-10 ; BTEXT call. unstated defaults to APPL1CALL
            L3ONLY=0 ; 1=No user downlink connects on this port
            DIGIFLAG=1 ; Digipeat: 0=OFF, 1=ALL, 255=UI Only
            DIGIPORT=0 ; Port on which to send digi'd frames (0 = same port)
            USERS=0 ; Maximum number of L2 sessions, 0 = no limit
            ENDPORT
          • k1jtc
            Anyone try using the Yaesu ftm-350ar rig for 9600 baud?
            Message 5 of 23 , Nov 15, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Anyone try using the Yaesu ftm-350ar rig for 9600 baud?

              --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <mmelnik1@...> wrote:
              >
              > Yes the Mic. Plus will work for AFSK, but not FSK (9600 Baud)
              >
              > Mike N9PMO
              > www.n9pmo.com
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
              > N9ACQ
              > Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 1:15 PM
              > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: 9600 baud packet instability
              >
              >  
              > Mike
              >                 Mic plugs work for 1200. I used a TR-7930 for years that
              > way.  One suggestion for TNC connections to 6 pin mini-din. Use the 9600
              > baud pin and set radio t0 9600 capability. Then radio is useable for
              > either 1200 or 9600 without changes.
              > 73 Bill
              > N9ACQ
              >
            • Rick Nicholson
              I agree totally, I ve had the Dr235t in operation for a year and found its performance on 9.6k nominal and unreliable as a backbone, During heavy use the
              Message 6 of 23 , Nov 16, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                I agree totally, I've had the Dr235t in operation for a year and found its performance on 9.6k nominal and unreliable as a backbone, 
                During heavy use the dr235t will distort the packets to the points they cannot be decoded even at short distances. 



                I've found that the Tait  8105 a much better choice for a backbone transceiver. 
                Ive been using the Tait's  for repeater linking and remote voter sites for several years, after months of testing numerous commercial brands the Tait out performs them all and we will be changing out the Dr235t for the Tait after the first of the year. 
                 
                I'm hoping others in Indiana will realize the issues with the Dr235t and standardize with the Tait for the 220 backbone.

                Rick/ n9umj



                Sent from my iPhone

                On Nov 15, 2012, at 8:17 AM, "Jeff - WA4ZKO" <wa4zko@...> wrote:

                 

                Alinco DR-235's are very marginal radios for 9.6k. The ARRL Lab BER testing for them reveals the problem.

                You can probably pull your PACLEN back to 64 or 32 and see a small improvement in terms of retries at a cost of reduced throughput. You might do a bit better with a TNC that uses a true G3RUH modem, but I suspect you are fighting an uphill battle with a marginal radio for 9.6k (regardless of how it's advertised).

                The DR-235 (and DR-435) rigs are good for 1200 baud, but horrid for 9600 baud. If this is a backbone link (no users) you will do far better just running 1200 baud and opening up the parms (paclen, maxframe, ect).

                As others have said deviation is important, but unless you are using older or modified radios with "wider" filters you will probably find the 9.6k sweet spot on newer gear is around 2.8KHz peak deviation. Make sure your meter can show/measure peak deviation.

                73
                Jeff
                WA4ZKO
                "Packet Radio never died, it just evolved."
                http://twitter.com/wa4zko

                --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups.com, "k1jtc" <jeffrey.t.clark@...> wrote:
                >
                > Rather than reply to all I will post all replies here. I am running alinco 235. I have 2 radios sitting in the same room. From what I understand the KPC 9612 only supports 9600 baud on the com port so that is the highest speed to go to the computer. Am I wrong? S meter readings are full scale in the room as well as when I try across the city. The radios are identical except the one that is not hooked to the bbs has the internal tnc option.
                >
                > --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups.com, "N9ACQ" <n9acq@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Jeff
                > >
                > > The biggest problem with 9600 is deviation. Both ends should
                > > be around 3 Khz. 9600 also need to bypass all audio amplifiers and filters
                > > on both transmit and receive. A deviation meter really is needed to set the
                > > proper audio level to the radio. The other thing is what is the S meter
                > > reading on receive?
                > >
                > > 73 Bill
                > >
                > > N9ACQ
                > >
                >

              • Bill Vodall
                ... Is that with the built in 9k6 TNC or a good external TNC like the PK96? Thanks, Bill - WA7NWP
                Message 7 of 23 , Nov 16, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  > I agree totally, I've had the Dr235t in operation for a year and found its
                  > performance on 9.6k nominal and unreliable as a backbone,
                  > During heavy use the dr235t will distort the packets to the points they
                  > cannot be decoded even at short distances.

                  Is that with the built in 9k6 TNC or a "good" external TNC like the PK96?

                  Thanks,
                  Bill - WA7NWP
                • Jeff - WA4ZKO
                  My experience is the modem in the PK-96 and the 9612 TNCs perform the same. Neither are true G3RUH modems, but both work well with a good 9.6k radio. Best TNC
                  Message 8 of 23 , Nov 16, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    My experience is the modem in the PK-96 and the 9612 TNCs perform the same. Neither are true G3RUH modems, but both work well with a good 9.6k radio.

                    Best TNC in the world can't make up for BER specs like these, especially when you start off listening to a TX BER that bad.
                    (DR-235 BER data per ARRL Lab results)

                    Receiver:
                    BER at 12-dB SINAD, 3.8×10–3
                    BER at 16 dB SINAD, 1.4×10–4
                    BER at –50 dBm, 2.4×10–5
                    transmitter:
                    BER at 12-dB SINAD + 30 dB, 3.4×10–4

                    Pretty decent TXDelay, but the RX/TX BER is the problem.

                    Good to know there's a usable commercial "off-the-shelf 220 radio out there with the Tait rigs.

                    Be nice if the ARRL would get back to publishing BER Test data on the newer rigs. Then maybe crack down on manufacturers advertising rigs as "9600 ready" if they don't meet a minimal BER spec.


                    73
                    Jeff
                    WA4ZKO
                    "Packet Radio never died, it just evolved."
                    http://twitter.com/wa4zko

                    --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups.com, Bill Vodall <wa7nwp@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > > I agree totally, I've had the Dr235t in operation for a year and found its
                    > > performance on 9.6k nominal and unreliable as a backbone,
                    > > During heavy use the dr235t will distort the packets to the points they
                    > > cannot be decoded even at short distances.
                    >
                    > Is that with the built in 9k6 TNC or a "good" external TNC like the PK96?
                    >
                    > Thanks,
                    > Bill - WA7NWP
                    >
                  • Bill Vodall
                    ... What numbers would a good radio have? 1x10-6? Thanks, Bill
                    Message 9 of 23 , Nov 16, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > (DR-235 BER data per ARRL Lab results)
                      >
                      > Receiver:
                      > BER at 12-dB SINAD, 3.8×10–3
                      > BER at 16 dB SINAD, 1.4×10–4
                      > BER at –50 dBm, 2.4×10–5
                      > transmitter:
                      > BER at 12-dB SINAD + 30 dB, 3.4×10–4

                      What numbers would a good radio have? 1x10-6?

                      Thanks,
                      Bill
                    • PE1RDW
                      ... probably 0 but the only radio I ever found that has that is a converted analog cell phone like nokia morbia -- 73 Andre PE1RDW
                      Message 10 of 23 , Nov 16, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 21:15:32 +0100, Bill Vodall <wa7nwp@...> wrote:

                        >> (DR-235 BER data per ARRL Lab results)
                        >>
                        >> Receiver:
                        >> BER at 12-dB SINAD, 3.8×10–3
                        >> BER at 16 dB SINAD, 1.4×10–4
                        >> BER at –50 dBm, 2.4×10–5
                        >> transmitter:
                        >> BER at 12-dB SINAD + 30 dB, 3.4×10–4
                        >
                        > What numbers would a good radio have? 1x10-6?
                        >
                        > Thanks,
                        > Bill
                        >
                        probably 0 but the only radio I ever found that has that is a converted
                        analog cell phone like nokia morbia

                        --
                        73 Andre PE1RDW
                      • Jeff - WA4ZKO
                        1.0x10-5 (or better) is good benchmark to look for on the RX BER at –50 dBm test and the TX BER at 12-dB SINAD+30 dB test. If a radio can t perform well at
                        Message 11 of 23 , Nov 16, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          1.0x10-5 (or better) is good benchmark to look for on the RX BER at –50 dBm test and the TX "BER at 12-dB SINAD+30 dB" test. If a radio can't perform well at those levels then good luck with it on the 9.6k airwaves.

                          http://wx4j.com/Radio-TNC9600bInfoC.htm

                          A really good article by KE3Z in the May 1995 QST goes into BER testing details and what makes a good 9600 baud radio (or not). Unfortunately I don't think it's openly available on the internet.
                          I might check to see if the ARRL would allow me to PDF it and post it publicly if there is enough interest.


                          73
                          Jeff
                          WA4ZKO
                          "Packet Radio never died, it just evolved."
                          http://twitter.com/wa4zko

                          --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups.com, Bill Vodall <wa7nwp@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > > (DR-235 BER data per ARRL Lab results)
                          > >
                          > > Receiver:
                          > > BER at 12-dB SINAD, 3.8×10–3
                          > > BER at 16 dB SINAD, 1.4×10–4
                          > > BER at –50 dBm, 2.4×10–5
                          > > transmitter:
                          > > BER at 12-dB SINAD + 30 dB, 3.4×10–4
                          >
                          > What numbers would a good radio have? 1x10-6?
                          >
                          > Thanks,
                          > Bill
                          >
                        • Bill Vodall
                          Thank you Jeff.. That s good info to keep on had. Bill
                          Message 12 of 23 , Nov 16, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Thank you Jeff.. That's good info to keep on had.

                            Bill

                            > 1.0x10-5 (or better) is good benchmark to look for on the RX BER at –50
                            > dBm test and the TX "BER at 12-dB SINAD+30 dB" test. If a radio can't
                            > perform well at those levels then good luck with it on the 9.6k airwaves.
                            >
                            > http://wx4j.com/Radio-TNC9600bInfoC.htm
                          • Rick Nicholson
                            That was with a Kantronics KPC-9612 and on a Timewave DSP-232USB. Rick/n9umj Sent from my iPhone
                            Message 13 of 23 , Nov 16, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              That was with a Kantronics KPC-9612 and on a Timewave DSP-232USB. 

                              Rick/n9umj


                              Sent from my iPhone

                              On Nov 16, 2012, at 11:31 AM, Bill Vodall <wa7nwp@...> wrote:

                               

                              > I agree totally, I've had the Dr235t in operation for a year and found its
                              > performance on 9.6k nominal and unreliable as a backbone,
                              > During heavy use the dr235t will distort the packets to the points they
                              > cannot be decoded even at short distances.

                              Is that with the built in 9k6 TNC or a "good" external TNC like the PK96?

                              Thanks,
                              Bill - WA7NWP

                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.