3755Re: [V4Protocol] V4 vs. Winmor
- Dec 25 5:43 AMRick, is the DSP chip in P4 Dragons a unique chip make special for SGS? Or is the same DSP chip commercially available, or is it also being used in other high-end sound cards?
You say a computer sound card will not do it, but a simple search turns up all these DSP sound cards that are even *more* expensive than the P4 ... examples here: http://www.zzounds.com/cat--DSP-Cards--2428 So, first, does anyone know exactly what the main DSP chip in the P4 is? Do the high-end sound cards use a totally different DSP architecture or technology? I'm asking questions to stimulate thinking. When I was younger I was taught that no matter how something is being done, "there is always a better way".
On 12/25/2013 10:25 AM, RICK WESTERFIELD wrote:
H4 is more robust than V4 and somewhat faster. It is for text chat messaging rather than for the email and file attachment methods that WINMOR supports.
Winmor is faster mostly because it is wider though that is not the complete story here.
It is going to be tough to beat Pactor 4 in an SCS modem with that rock crushingly powerful DSP chip at a competitive price. A computer sound card will not do it so do not hold your breath. Winmor and RMS Express do very well in that effort though.
From: Dean <dean243@...>;
Subject: [V4Protocol] V4 vs. Winmor
Sent: Wed, Dec 25, 2013 12:02:11 PM
How does the V4 or H4 protocol compare with Winmor 1600 in terms of speed and poor signal conditions? And *if* V4 or H4 is superior to Winmor 1600, why are we still using Winmor? And I'm new here, and know very little about these various protocols, but may I suggest that someone *please* develop a software based protocol that will be as robust as Pactor 4, or possibly even superior?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>