The big non-event?
- The only W1AW MFSK16/PSK31 tests I would have had a chance
of copying here in New Zealand would have been the 1500utc ones,
and as it was 0400 local time I was not in the shack. However I
would assume that those of us who have been operating these new-
fangled digital modes for some time made up our minds some time
A: for relatively short paths say up to 10,000km PSK 31 and
MSFK16 performance is about the same.
B: for longer paths of say 10,000 to 35,000km, MFSK16 will out-
perform PSK31 with its phase flutter and multi-path problems in the
vast majority of instances.
As I see it, the vast majority of intended recipients of W1AW
bulletins (ARRL members in the US), are well within the 10,000km
range, so providing propagation exists between the W1AW and the
receiving qth and there was no qrm, there should be little difference
between reception quality of the two modes.
However, I don't feel that PSK31 or MFSK16 are ideal modes for
broadcast transmissions, MT63 would be much better. Why not ?
Well because of the precise signal tuning requirements of the
PSK31 and MFSK16 programs, an operator must in most cases
be in attendance at the receiving end. Now Nino's MT63 software
allows a frequency error of plus or minus 100Hz before the program
fails to synchronize and lock on to a signal. Therefore the rig and
PC can be set up to receive broadcast transmissions with the
operator safely in bed, or at work or whatever. Many of the US
stations I have worked on MT63 on 28MHz will know how good non-
operator attended reception works out in practice.
What about reception quality. Well having operated MT63 for 12
months, and MFSK16 for six months, and with many hundreds of
contacts in both modes, I feel all things being equal, that MT63
quality would have been equal or very close to MFSK16. Another
benefit is that MT63 (1kHz) has a baud rate approx 2.4 that of
73 Frank ZL2BR