RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Digital (https://www.radiobanter.com/digital/)
-   -   Heard a Digi Mode, what is it? (https://www.radiobanter.com/digital/25131-heard-digi-mode-what.html)

VE3ELQ January 6th 05 08:18 PM

Heard a Digi Mode, what is it?
 
Last couple evenings heard on 3584 a digital mode that sounds and
looks like MFSK on the waterfall except the bandwidth is 1000 hz. None
of my various programs will decode it. Anyone have a clue as to what
it may be and what SW is available to use it. TIA Nigel VE3ELQ

Caveat Lector January 6th 05 08:51 PM


"VE3ELQ" wrote in message
...
Last couple evenings heard on 3584 a digital mode that sounds and
looks like MFSK on the waterfall except the bandwidth is 1000 hz. None
of my various programs will decode it. Anyone have a clue as to what
it may be and what SW is available to use it. TIA Nigel VE3ELQ


Nigel maybe compare it to the digital on-line sounds at these URL's
http://www.wunclub.com/sounds/

http://www.kb9ukd.com/digital/

http://rover.wiesbaden.netsurf.de/~s.../DIG_intro.htm

Good Luck
--
Caveat Lector



Jim Haynes January 7th 05 03:27 AM

In article ,
VE3ELQ wrote:


Last couple evenings heard on 3584 a digital mode that sounds and
looks like MFSK on the waterfall except the bandwidth is 1000 hz. None
of my various programs will decode it. Anyone have a clue as to what
it may be and what SW is available to use it. TIA Nigel VE3ELQ


There is a new mode being experimented with - I've seen it discussed
in the Yahoo groups digitalradio and mfsk. Haven't tried it yet myself.
--

jhhaynes at earthlink dot net


Bob Bob January 7th 05 03:39 AM

At 1000Hz wide? How about MT63?

Cheers Bob VK2YQA

VE3ELQ wrote:
Last couple evenings heard on 3584 a digital mode that sounds and
looks like MFSK on the waterfall except the bandwidth is 1000 hz. None
of my various programs will decode it. Anyone have a clue as to what
it may be and what SW is available to use it. TIA Nigel VE3ELQ


VE3ELQ January 7th 05 02:21 PM

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 14:39:36 +1100, Bob Bob
wrote:
I tried that and no go with MixW2.12, the brackets are 500hz wide in
that mode. It was there again last night on 3583 along with some good
DX that I worked, a G4 and some RUs, the band was long skip and
reasonably quiet. Still dont know what it is but at 1000hz wide its
not narrow band and it was well into the PSK region with the PSK31
signals all below it. It might become a problem unless they move up or
down a little and leave 3 khz free for the truly narrow band modes.
73s Nigel VE3ELQ

At 1000Hz wide? How about MT63?

Cheers Bob VK2YQA



Jim January 7th 05 10:43 PM

It's called "Olivia." It's a MFSK variant with multiple tones and bandwidth
settings which are currently user selectable The default setup is 32 tones
with a bandwidth of 1000Hz. The mode uses forward error correction allowing
weak signal reception. The made is being developed by Pawel Jalocha,
SP9VRC.



"VE3ELQ" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 14:39:36 +1100, Bob Bob
wrote:
I tried that and no go with MixW2.12, the brackets are 500hz wide in
that mode. It was there again last night on 3583 along with some good
DX that I worked, a G4 and some RUs, the band was long skip and
reasonably quiet. Still dont know what it is but at 1000hz wide its
not narrow band and it was well into the PSK region with the PSK31
signals all below it. It might become a problem unless they move up or
down a little and leave 3 khz free for the truly narrow band modes.
73s Nigel VE3ELQ

At 1000Hz wide? How about MT63?

Cheers Bob VK2YQA





Paul Rubin January 7th 05 11:06 PM

"Jim" writes:
It's called "Olivia." It's a MFSK variant with multiple tones and bandwidth
settings which are currently user selectable The default setup is 32 tones
with a bandwidth of 1000Hz. The mode uses forward error correction allowing
weak signal reception. The made is being developed by Pawel Jalocha,
SP9VRC.


I wonder why anyone is messing with these modes instead of doing DSSS,
now that we can digitally-process the daylights out of the received
signal instead of messing with analog filter banks or whatever. I've
been hoping for something even slower than PSK31, spread over an
entire ham band or even multiple bands. I'd think something like that
would be ultra-reliable through just about any amount of interference.

TOM January 8th 05 01:37 AM

DSSS is nowhere near the best modulation format in the presence of
narrowband
interference. OFDM is far better suited in this case as was shown in ADSL
trials (examing the effects of cable crosstalk). We found the same during
our
amateur spread specturm experiments in Dallas in the 902-928 MHZ band in
the late 1990s where DSSS was far inferior to frequency hopping with bad
channel notching.

-- Tom, N5EG




"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...

SNIP


I wonder why anyone is messing with these modes instead of doing DSSS,
now that we can digitally-process the daylights out of the received
signal instead of messing with analog filter banks or whatever. I've
been hoping for something even slower than PSK31, spread over an
entire ham band or even multiple bands. I'd think something like that
would be ultra-reliable through just about any amount of interference.




Paul Rubin January 8th 05 01:51 AM

"TOM" writes:
DSSS is nowhere near the best modulation format in the presence of
narrowband interference. OFDM is far better suited in this case as
was shown in ADSL trials (examing the effects of cable
crosstalk). We found the same during our amateur spread specturm
experiments in Dallas in the 902-928 MHZ band in the late 1990s
where DSSS was far inferior to frequency hopping with bad channel
notching.


I was thinking in terms of DSSS on the HF bands, for reliable, long
haul data traffic at very low bit rates. Am I nuts?

TOM January 8th 05 02:35 AM

Well, if anyplace has severe narrowband interference, I would think that
HF would surely be it.

-- Tom, N5EG


"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
"TOM" writes:
DSSS is nowhere near the best modulation format in the presence of
narrowband interference. OFDM is far better suited in this case as
was shown in ADSL trials (examing the effects of cable
crosstalk). We found the same during our amateur spread specturm
experiments in Dallas in the 902-928 MHZ band in the late 1990s
where DSSS was far inferior to frequency hopping with bad channel
notching.


I was thinking in terms of DSSS on the HF bands, for reliable, long
haul data traffic at very low bit rates. Am I nuts?




Charles Brabham January 8th 05 04:30 AM


"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...

I was thinking in terms of DSSS on the HF bands, for reliable, long
haul data traffic at very low bit rates. Am I nuts?


Here's a way to get reliable, long haul data traffic at low bit rates:

http://www.uspacket.org/plan_a.htm

Charles, N5PVL




VE3ELQ January 8th 05 04:47 AM

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 17:43:53 -0500, "Jim" wrote:

Thanks Jim, I ran it down and joined the digitalradio reflector yahoo
group which has some info there. Also worked a 3 way on 80 meter MFSK
tonight and both guys had Olivia capability and were most helpfull.
But 1khz BW? Jury is still out on that one. Cheers Nigel VE3ELQ

It's called "Olivia." It's a MFSK variant with multiple tones and bandwidth
settings which are currently user selectable The default setup is 32 tones
with a bandwidth of 1000Hz. The mode uses forward error correction allowing
weak signal reception. The made is being developed by Pawel Jalocha,
SP9VRC.



[email protected] April 3rd 05 04:57 PM

When I use IE 6 to go to these sites I cannot not listen to the sound
bytes, Windows Media Player starts and then informs me that it cannot
play the file. If I use Netscape 7.2 I can listen to them using WMP.
WMP is the default wav file player. Anybody know by it won't work with
IE?

73 de Glenn...VE4GN


On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:51:49 -0800, "Caveat Lector"
wrote:



Nigel maybe compare it to the digital on-line sounds at these URL's
http://www.wunclub.com/sounds/

http://www.kb9ukd.com/digital/

http://rover.wiesbaden.netsurf.de/~s.../DIG_intro.htm

Good Luck
--
Caveat Lector




Dan Richardson April 3rd 05 06:41 PM

You need to install QuickTime.

Danny, K6MHE


On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 15:57:48 GMT, wrote:

When I use IE 6 to go to these sites I cannot not listen to the sound
bytes, Windows Media Player starts and then informs me that it cannot
play the file. If I use Netscape 7.2 I can listen to them using WMP.
WMP is the default wav file player. Anybody know by it won't work with
IE?

73 de Glenn...VE4GN


On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:51:49 -0800, "Caveat Lector"
wrote:



Nigel maybe compare it to the digital on-line sounds at these URL's
http://www.wunclub.com/sounds/

http://www.kb9ukd.com/digital/

http://rover.wiesbaden.netsurf.de/~s.../DIG_intro.htm

Good Luck
--
Caveat Lector




[email protected] April 3rd 05 10:19 PM

Thanks for your prompt response, Danny. Question.

1) If Netscape/WMP does not need Quick Time why does IE6/WMP?
Also a quick check using Google indicates that Quick Time is an Apple
program so I assume it won't fly with Windows XP.

Glenn

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 10:41:59 -0700, Dan Richardson
wrote:

You need to install QuickTime.

Danny, K6MHE


On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 15:57:48 GMT, wrote:

When I use IE 6 to go to these sites I cannot not listen to the sound
bytes, Windows Media Player starts and then informs me that it cannot
play the file. If I use Netscape 7.2 I can listen to them using WMP.
WMP is the default wav file player. Anybody know by it won't work with
IE?

73 de Glenn...VE4GN


On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:51:49 -0800, "Caveat Lector"
wrote:



Nigel maybe compare it to the digital on-line sounds at these URL's
http://www.wunclub.com/sounds/

http://www.kb9ukd.com/digital/

http://rover.wiesbaden.netsurf.de/~s.../DIG_intro.htm

Good Luck
--
Caveat Lector





Dan Richardson April 3rd 05 10:33 PM

Quick time will run just fine with IE.

I checked one of the sites you gave using Firefox and IE they both
worked fine and both used QucikTime.

Check on the web from a QucikTime download. It's free!

Danny


On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 21:19:31 GMT, wrote:

Thanks for your prompt response, Danny. Question.

1) If Netscape/WMP does not need Quick Time why does IE6/WMP?
Also a quick check using Google indicates that Quick Time is an Apple
program so I assume it won't fly with Windows XP.

Glenn

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 10:41:59 -0700, Dan Richardson
wrote:

You need to install QuickTime.

Danny, K6MHE


On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 15:57:48 GMT,
wrote:

When I use IE 6 to go to these sites I cannot not listen to the sound
bytes, Windows Media Player starts and then informs me that it cannot
play the file. If I use Netscape 7.2 I can listen to them using WMP.
WMP is the default wav file player. Anybody know by it won't work with
IE?

73 de Glenn...VE4GN


On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:51:49 -0800, "Caveat Lector"
wrote:



Nigel maybe compare it to the digital on-line sounds at these URL's
http://www.wunclub.com/sounds/

http://www.kb9ukd.com/digital/

http://rover.wiesbaden.netsurf.de/~s.../DIG_intro.htm

Good Luck
--
Caveat Lector






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com