|
Hello Network 105,
I am an occasional participant in Packet Radio and I was wondering we could be more aggressive with our spectrum usage and software configuration.
I know Direwolf and UZ7HO Soundmodem seem to support multiple modems receiving at once, though finding people to test dual-port/model soundmodem is difficult. For USA operators, I would hope they could be more encouraged to try out more unusual 'open' packet modes with the baud limit being replaced with that 2.8Khz frequency limit
Given the growing amount of VARA users are giving us a lot of interference/overlap with their negative/lower slot frequencies, I feel like having a fixed center frequency/tones/spot to park 600baud and possibly 1200Baud would remind non-traditional packet users to be more mindful and let us enjoy more speed when links are strong enough.?
For example, on Network 40/ 7.104 LSB, my Soundmodem at 300Baud lists 1700Hz as the center freq with the standard 1600+1800 tones/ends.
It would be nice if more of us could agree to set up a spare 600Baud modem to say ~1225-1250Hz center freq (1000hz + 1450hz tones)
with a further spare channel / slot at 750Hz for 525 + 975Hz tones for those with newer radios who don't need to worry about very aggressive band filters
on TX (I'm on a FT991a now, but my FT-990 had this lower power thing on <1200hz and >2200hz)
As an option for occasional usage, a single 1200Baud 'Channel' could be made with waterfall/center freq of 1000 for tones of 500Hz and 1500Hz.This would at least keep the primary 300baud tones/center freq untouched by transmission overlap, and would ideally allow operators with software modems to do their beacons on FX/AX.25 300Baud, but can use the Port option (ie in Easyterm) to specify the speed of the connection with a decent amount of operators eventually being able to hear both 300+600/1200baud.
I feel with modern software and FX25/FEC being an option (that should be a default, honestly) higher baud modes shouldn't be 'unusable' due to their increased bandwidth/speed on moderate HF/SSB conditions, which that plus legacy equipment could keep people wary of adoption?
Of course, it would also be of help to maybe talk with the VARAC Chat program folks who have decided to widely expand VARA's used frequencies with their slot selection system to not go below 14.105/7.105 USB?
I'm probably missing a bunch of other information, but not having to do scheds to test high-baud packet in the USA as we move towards the assumption more stations are using it (maybe note in our beacons too, for keyboard to keyboard?) would be good
|
Great post, Dom!
?
With the recent lift on baud rate restrictions by the FCC in the United States, there are definitely exciting times to come! I can foresee a lot of experimenting with increased baud rates. Bandwidth consideration will be important as well. Just last year, even before the FCC passed their ruling, I was having an educational conversation with Ken at Kantronics about higher baud rates and bandwidth on VHF. He taught me that, "As you increment those packet baud rates, 19200 is twice the baud rate of 9600, requires twice the transmitted bandwidth, and twice the receiver bandwidth. ?38400 is twice the baud of 19200, and requires twice the tx/rx bandwidths of 19200. So, 9600 baud packet works best with about 20KHz (or more) bandwidths, 19200 works best with 40KHz bandwidths (or more), etc. With lower transmit deviation levels, you can use each baud at less transmit bandwith, if the intended receiver has adequate receive passband and strong signals (good signal to noise ratios)."
?
While I'm sure no one is going to try 9600 on HF any time soon, I do recall the Canadian packeteers being quite successful with 1200 baud AX.25 packet on 10 meters FM the last sunspot cycle. :-)
?
I can't speak for the group, but my opinion is to agree with you. Why not run a 600 or 1200 baud Soundcard or TNC at certain times of the day (or evening) for experimentation?
?
As far as VARA: I respect the mode. I works. But I don't use it. It is proprietary. You have to pay to upgrade. And quite frankly, I want to play with packet. VARA isn't packet. I enjoy packet because it has three great advantages over other digital modes: transparency, error correction, and automatic control.
?
The problem with HF packet is that 300 baud is too slow for hauling traffic between packet BBS systems. Since there aren't enough terrestrial systems to forward on VHF/UHF backbones, many sysops are using VARA on HF. Their choice...
?
Dom, you also mention, FX.25. A very interesting packet mode very close to AX.25 which works well on HF. Let's also remember Kantronics GTOR mode that they still have in the KAM XL TNCs. I think it's comparable to PACTOR 1 or 2? Someone correct me... Then there is, in my opinion, the Creme de la Creme of HF packet, Robust Packet!
?
Your thoughts, Dom.
?
Chris WW2BSA?
?
On 02/20/2024 12:14 AM EST VP9NO Dom <sunday.weaver@...> wrote:
?
?
Hello Network 105,
I am an occasional participant in Packet Radio and I was wondering we could be more aggressive with our spectrum usage and software configuration.
I know Direwolf and UZ7HO Soundmodem seem to support multiple modems receiving at once, though finding people to test dual-port/model soundmodem is difficult. For USA operators, I would hope they could be more encouraged to try out more unusual 'open' packet modes with the baud limit being replaced with that 2.8Khz frequency limit
Given the growing amount of VARA users are giving us a lot of interference/overlap with their negative/lower slot frequencies, I feel like having a fixed center frequency/tones/spot to park 600baud and possibly 1200Baud would remind non-traditional packet users to be more mindful and let us enjoy more speed when links are strong enough.?
For example, on Network 40/ 7.104 LSB, my Soundmodem at 300Baud lists 1700Hz as the center freq with the standard 1600+1800 tones/ends.
It would be nice if more of us could agree to set up a spare 600Baud modem to say ~1225-1250Hz center freq (1000hz + 1450hz tones)
with a further spare channel / slot at 750Hz for 525 + 975Hz tones for those with newer radios who don't need to worry about very aggressive band filters
on TX (I'm on a FT991a now, but my FT-990 had this lower power thing on <1200hz and >2200hz)
As an option for occasional usage, a single 1200Baud 'Channel' could be made with waterfall/center freq of 1000 for tones of 500Hz and 1500Hz.This would at least keep the primary 300baud tones/center freq untouched by transmission overlap, and would ideally allow operators with software modems to do their beacons on FX/AX.25 300Baud, but can use the Port option (ie in Easyterm) to specify the speed of the connection with a decent amount of operators eventually being able to hear both 300+600/1200baud.
I feel with modern software and FX25/FEC being an option (that should be a default, honestly) higher baud modes shouldn't be 'unusable' due to their increased bandwidth/speed on moderate HF/SSB conditions, which that plus legacy equipment could keep people wary of adoption?
Of course, it would also be of help to maybe talk with the VARAC Chat program folks who have decided to widely expand VARA's used frequencies with their slot selection system to not go below 14.105/7.105 USB?
I'm probably missing a bunch of other information, but not having to do scheds to test high-baud packet in the USA as we move towards the assumption more stations are using it (maybe note in our beacons too, for keyboard to keyboard?) would be good
|
Hi Chris WW2BSA,
One thing I do not know much about is the 'traditional' packet hardware, like those TNCs for Pactor and Robust Packet and if there's software reimplementations so they're easily usable / accessible? One issue with packet is indeed the lack of standardization, or ease of identifying non-AX25/AFSK300 modes with 'small' bandwidths. I can't tell PACTOR from Robust Packet, and I don't know what benefits there are to using Robust Packet (which doesn't seem to be decodable by 'basic' packet modems?) with the new regulation changes and upcoming packet modems.
for other modems, ARDOP development has been dead for a few years, and in turn now we have FreeDATA based on Codec2 (sadly software is very alpha and buggy on Windows for me, but is under constant development) as a potential longer-term replacement for direwolf/soundmodem. That's probably another huge amount of work to convince people to try since it's not 'true' packet, so best to keep focus on the most popular HF Packet software that I also first tried a decade ago.
One coordination issue that I also have noticed is the USB(uppersideband) users on our networks. I know some operators like to run on say, 7.1013 USB to hear both standard packet, robust packet (nearby) and VARA packets on the main freq? If we've got a mix of sidebands, the community would need to agree to offsets for LSB and USB set radios for these additional 'channels'.
I suppose my beacon could include '600b @1250cf L & 2150cf U' as a notice that I am running a decoder on that area. I see a decent bit of QRM from wider digital/packet from Vara or Winlink at ~750hz or so on 7.104LSB
|
Well, my comments on hardware.
?
In the pre-internet days, or as I call it, the pre-Packet Apocalyse Era, when packet was thriving in the 1980's, Terminal Node Controllers ruled the planet! The internet came and packet usage declined. Then the hobby gave birth to a new breed of young digital amateur radio operators who didn't know what DOS, Win95 and XP was - no less use it. These operators are Linux and Sound Cards gurus, creating new digital modes. Packet interest began to rise - but had many children and grandchildren on the bands too! LOL The bands have become filled with digital signals of all sorts. So many modes, so many choices, so many ways to operate digitally.?
?
I love the progress made over the decades, but alas, I am still old school. I still play with PK-232/900, PacComm, MFJ and Kantronics TNCs. The KPC-3+ which is still very much in production, has a nice feature or HF packet.?If you set to SOFTWARE, the firmware inside the TNC will detect the presence of data to?enable the carrier detection, allowing operation with un-squelched audio.
Pactor has evolved into Pactor 3 and 4. But I think 4 uses encryption which is a no-no for hams. While those TNCs will do Robust Packet, the hardware is VERY expensive.? Plus, they are proprietary, which I don't like. They are made/created by SCS. Their . There seems to be a cheaper workaround but I am still investigating. There is a Groups.io RPR? /g/robustpacket/ that I think you will find interesting. As a USER my technical background is limited so I can not give you data, but it is my understanding that RPR is very reliable on HF.
?
I never heard of FreeDATA but I believe I found the and will have to read it further.?
?
I agree regarding standardization of mode. I read somewhere that the following conventions should be followed on HF: Soundcard digital modes = USB. However, Clover, RTTY, PACKET, AMTOR and PACTOR = LSB. Network105 is suppose to be LSB all the time. I think there was a thread here years ago that indicated that if one had a radio not capable of LSB, you could use USB by using a different dials frequency. The bottom line is: use LSB on HF packet.
?
I would like to try 600 baud with you. Alas, I am not retired, have a wife and run several companies. Despite this, my wife loves amateur radio, is studying for her exam and supports my hobby. (Every ham should have a woman like this!) Let me set up things here and then work on details with you on how to proceed. Maybe we can start a new thread in case others want to join in this experiment. It's 3:50 AM Eastern...I have to get to sleep, but looking forward to your reply/post, Dom.
?
73 de Chris
ww2bsa
PS - Enjoyed your QRZ.com page!
PPS - I'm a former planetarium director and love astrophotography too!
?
On 02/20/2024 2:23 AM EST VP9NO Dom <sunday.weaver@...> wrote:
?
?
Hi Chris WW2BSA,
One thing I do not know much about is the 'traditional' packet hardware, like those TNCs for Pactor and Robust Packet and if there's software reimplementations so they're easily usable / accessible? One issue with packet is indeed the lack of standardization, or ease of identifying non-AX25/AFSK300 modes with 'small' bandwidths. I can't tell PACTOR from Robust Packet, and I don't know what benefits there are to using Robust Packet (which doesn't seem to be decodable by 'basic' packet modems?) with the new regulation changes and upcoming packet modems.
for other modems, ARDOP development has been dead for a few years, and in turn now we have FreeDATA based on Codec2 (sadly software is very alpha and buggy on Windows for me, but is under constant development) as a potential longer-term replacement for direwolf/soundmodem. That's probably another huge amount of work to convince people to try since it's not 'true' packet, so best to keep focus on the most popular HF Packet software that I also first tried a decade ago.
One coordination issue that I also have noticed is the USB(uppersideband) users on our networks. I know some operators like to run on say, 7.1013 USB to hear both standard packet, robust packet (nearby) and VARA packets on the main freq? If we've got a mix of sidebands, the community would need to agree to offsets for LSB and USB set radios for these additional 'channels'.
I suppose my beacon could include '600b @1250cf L & 2150cf U' as a notice that I am running a decoder on that area. I see a decent bit of QRM from wider digital/packet from Vara or Winlink at ~750hz or so on 7.104LSB
|
It¡¯s not ¡®Network 105¡¯ specifically, but GB7RDG is a well-connected packet node and BBS, with a 40m port, located in Reading, the south east of England, with onward RF links to the growing UK packet network.
24/7 service. 600bps QPSK IL2P+CRC (supported by QtSoundModem) Centre frequency 7052.75 - in the automated 500Hz+ unattended data stations section of our band plan? Dial: 7051.25 USB with a 1500Hz audio centre frequency? Regular beacon.
Toying with the idea of having it switch to a higher bitrate mode for a certain period each hour.
See you there?
Tom
Hello Network 105,
I am an occasional participant in Packet Radio and I was wondering we could be more aggressive with our spectrum usage and software configuration.
I know Direwolf and UZ7HO Soundmodem seem to support multiple modems receiving at once, though finding people to test dual-port/model soundmodem is difficult. For USA operators, I would hope they could be more encouraged to try out more unusual 'open' packet modes with the baud limit being replaced with that 2.8Khz frequency limit
Given the growing amount of VARA users are giving us a lot of interference/overlap with their negative/lower slot frequencies, I feel like having a fixed center frequency/tones/spot to park 600baud and possibly 1200Baud would remind non-traditional packet users to be more mindful and let us enjoy more speed when links are strong enough.?
For example, on Network 40/ 7.104 LSB, my Soundmodem at 300Baud lists 1700Hz as the center freq with the standard 1600+1800 tones/ends.
It would be nice if more of us could agree to set up a spare 600Baud modem to say ~1225-1250Hz center freq (1000hz + 1450hz tones)
with a further spare channel / slot at 750Hz for 525 + 975Hz tones for those with newer radios who don't need to worry about very aggressive band filters
on TX (I'm on a FT991a now, but my FT-990 had this lower power thing on <1200hz and >2200hz)
As an option for occasional usage, a single 1200Baud 'Channel' could be made with waterfall/center freq of 1000 for tones of 500Hz and 1500Hz.This would at least keep the primary 300baud tones/center freq untouched by transmission overlap, and would ideally allow operators with software modems to do their beacons on FX/AX.25 300Baud, but can use the Port option (ie in Easyterm) to specify the speed of the connection with a decent amount of operators eventually being able to hear both 300+600/1200baud.
I feel with modern software and FX25/FEC being an option (that should be a default, honestly) higher baud modes shouldn't be 'unusable' due to their increased bandwidth/speed on moderate HF/SSB conditions, which that plus legacy equipment could keep people wary of adoption?
Of course, it would also be of help to maybe talk with the VARAC Chat program folks who have decided to widely expand VARA's used frequencies with their slot selection system to not go below 14.105/7.105 USB?
I'm probably missing a bunch of other information, but not having to do scheds to test high-baud packet in the USA as we move towards the assumption more stations are using it (maybe note in our beacons too, for keyboard to keyboard?) would be good
|
Chris:
Just a short comment: Pactor (in any of its four schemes) does not use encryption as a necessity. (It does allow encrypting the traffic but it is of interest in business communications, not in ham radio of course.)
When it comes to Robust packet capability, there are less expensive solutions than the newest Pactor modems: SCS DSP Tracker TNC (although not in production any more when the new ones were cca 250 EUR/USD, I suppose that second-hand ones may be even cheaper), or some older SCS PTC modem series that included Robust packet (also second hand ones).
Regarding 'standardization of mode': Here in Europe most of us agreed on using USB, for almost all data modes, at least on 20m band. I hope that it does not interfere with LSB usage over the pond, so let us know :-)
Dom:
Regarding telling apart Pactor from Robust packet: the Robust 2-way exchange looks relatively similar to the 'classic' 300bd HF packet exchange (when you listen by your ear), although the sound (tone) of Robust is different. That is why you cannot decode/encode Robust with any non-SCS modem. On the other side, Pactor TX/RX timings for 2-way change-over are much more frequent, compared to either 'classic' or Robust packet (when you listen by your ear).
I use them all: Robust, Pactor and HF 300bd 'classic', on a daily basis. As expected, hams who have Pactor modems have more fun with Pactor mode, but it is possible to configure the pactor modem to use both: Some node/bbs software, such as BPQ for example, allows listening in both Pactor and Robust in parallel (of course not transmit in the same time).
And last but not least: Although it is possible to use any SCS Pactor modem for 'classic' 300bd packet, it would be irrational to do it regarding the modem cost. So instead I use both som other old-fashioned TNCs and RIGblaster sound-card adapters for the old packet. All works.
Misko YT7MPB / YU7BPQ
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/20/24 9:56 AM, Chris Lance WW2BSA wrote: Well, my comments on hardware.
In the pre-internet days, or as I call it, the pre-Packet Apocalyse Era, when packet was thriving in the 1980's, Terminal Node Controllers ruled the planet! The internet came and packet usage declined. Then the hobby gave birth to a new breed of young digital amateur radio operators who didn't know what DOS, Win95 and XP was - no less use it. These operators are Linux and Sound Cards gurus, creating new digital modes. Packet interest began to rise - but had many children and grandchildren on the bands too! LOL The bands have become filled with digital signals of all sorts. So many modes, so many choices, so many ways to operate digitally.
I love the progress made over the decades, but alas, I am still old school. I still play with PK-232/900, PacComm, MFJ and Kantronics TNCs. The KPC-3+ which is still very much in production, has a nice feature or HF packet. If you set to SOFTWARE, the firmware inside the TNC will detect the presence of data to enable the carrier detection, allowing operation with un-squelched audio.
Pactor has evolved into Pactor 3 and 4. But I think 4 uses encryption which is a no-no for hams. While those TNCs will do Robust Packet, the hardware is VERY expensive. Plus, they are proprietary, which I don't like. They are made/created by SCS. Their web page is here . There seems to be a cheaper workaround but I am still investigating. There is a Groups.io RPR /g/robustpacket/ that I think you will find interesting. As a USER my technical background is limited so I can not give you data, but it is my understanding that RPR is very reliable on HF.
I never heard of FreeDATA but I believe I found the web page and will have to read it further.
I agree regarding standardization of mode. I read somewhere that the following conventions should be followed on HF: Soundcard digital modes = USB. However, Clover, RTTY, PACKET, AMTOR and PACTOR = LSB. Network105 is suppose to be LSB all the time. I think there was a thread here years ago that indicated that if one had a radio not capable of LSB, you could use USB by using a different dials frequency. The bottom line is: use LSB on HF packet.
I would like to try 600 baud with you. Alas, I am not retired, have a wife and run several companies. Despite this, my wife loves amateur radio, is studying for her exam and supports my hobby. (Every ham should have a woman like this!) Let me set up things here and then work on details with you on how to proceed. Maybe we can start a new thread in case others want to join in this experiment. It's 3:50 AM Eastern...I have to get to sleep, but looking forward to your reply/post, Dom.
73 de Chris
ww2bsa
PS - Enjoyed your QRZ.com page!
PPS - I'm a former planetarium director and love astrophotography too!
On 02/20/2024 2:23 AM EST VP9NO Dom <sunday.weaver@...> wrote:
Hi Chris WW2BSA,
One thing I do not know much about is the 'traditional' packet hardware, like those TNCs for Pactor and Robust Packet and if there's software reimplementations so they're easily usable / accessible? One issue with packet is indeed the lack of standardization, or ease of identifying non-AX25/AFSK300 modes with 'small' bandwidths. I can't tell PACTOR from Robust Packet, and I don't know what benefits there are to using Robust Packet (which doesn't seem to be decodable by 'basic' packet modems?) with the new regulation changes and upcoming packet modems.
for other modems, ARDOP development has been dead for a few years, and in turn now we have FreeDATA based on Codec2 (sadly software is very alpha and buggy on Windows for me, but is under constant development) as a potential longer-term replacement for direwolf/soundmodem. That's probably another huge amount of work to convince people to try since it's not 'true' packet, so best to keep focus on the most popular HF Packet software that I also first tried a decade ago.
One coordination issue that I also have noticed is the USB(uppersideband) users on our networks. I know some operators like to run on say, 7.1013 USB to hear both standard packet, robust packet (nearby) and VARA packets on the main freq? If we've got a mix of sidebands, the community would need to agree to offsets for LSB and USB set radios for these additional 'channels'.
I suppose my beacon could include '600b @1250cf L & 2150cf U' as a notice that I am running a decoder on that area. I see a decent bit of QRM from wider digital/packet from Vara or Winlink at ~750hz or so on 7.104LSB
|
Hi Tom,?
I'll have to see if my signal reaches across to the UK. I've pinged a few EU and UK hams before on VARA 40M (plus assorted digital modes on 25-35W).
I'm now running QTSoundmodem with QPSK V26A 600baud and tuned to 7.05125 USB, I'm hearing some digital noises but no connection to the node yet
I guess the difference between QTSoundModem and the original one are another difference to take into consideration, oh boy!
|
FWIW given the recent rules change here in the US I re-configured QTSM several weeks ago to not only provide the usual AFSK AX25 300b 1700c port for BPQ on 7104 LSB but to also listen for 600 and 1200b sigs at the same 1700c. BPQ is not aware of anything other than the 300b port so this was just a listening experiment for me.
So far without shifting the 1700c around I have not seen any decodes except for the usual 300b NET40 traffic. I really did not expect to decode much nor do I ever expect 1200b AFSK to be useful at 40m freq's for anything other than close by or strong sigs but if anyone is using AFSK AX25 at anything faster than 300b on 7104 let me know the CF and I'll adjust to see if I can decode anything.
With regard to robust packet I experimented with that some a while back using WinRPR since while I am sure they work well I find the SCS units to be way overpriced. The results here with WinRPR were not good. On x86 linux with wine WinRPR was problematic and unstable. It was noticeably more stable on a win10 system but still not quite ready for regular prime time at least here with the configurations I tested with. If anyone is using a stable implementation of WinRPR on a x86 system (I do not use rPi's) whether linux or windows please let me know as I'd like to compare notes and resume testing.
73 de Rich WA3WLH
|
Hello, OMs.
Thanks to the topic starter, it was very interesting.
My two cents:
Sergey UT1HZM and I connected some time ago by 600bps QPSK IL2P+CRC CF?+1500Hz.
Of course, for now this modulation is more demanding on the signal and the absence of frequency interference, but we continue testing.?I know what is used on the satellite QO-100, but I don¡¯t have the equipment ready for it yet.
There is no beacon, but you can try calling RN1M-5 or RN1M-8 on 14.102.3 in the afternoon from 5 to 15 UTC, then 7044 from 14 to 20 UTC, and then until the morning on 7045.2
Frequencies DIAL, USB modulation, CF +1500Hz
About 10 meters - I have an FM station at 29 MHz, I plan to find a site and connect a port with VARA FM NARROW on 10 meters (as an alternative to 1200 baud AFSK) . We'll see what comes of it. But for now this is strictly in the plans.
Tom M0LTE, thanks for the information, I'll try to leave the station on reception at your node's frequency. I can clearly hear the signals from stations in your packet network from 7045.2 USB DIAL in St. Petersburg in IL2P 300 baud.
§Ó§ä, 20 §æ§Ö§Ó§â. 2024?§Ô. §Ó 20:05, WA3WLH - Rich < wa3wlh@...>:
FWIW given the recent rules change here in the US I re-configured QTSM
several weeks ago to not only provide the usual AFSK AX25 300b 1700c
port for BPQ on 7104 LSB but to also listen for 600 and 1200b sigs at
the same 1700c. BPQ is not aware of anything other than the 300b port so
this was just a listening experiment for me.
So far without shifting the 1700c around I have not seen any decodes
except for the usual 300b NET40 traffic. I really did not expect to
decode much nor do I ever expect 1200b AFSK to be useful at 40m freq's
for anything other than close by or strong sigs but if anyone is using
AFSK AX25 at anything faster than 300b on 7104 let me know the CF and
I'll adjust to see if I can decode anything.
With regard to robust packet I experimented with that some a while back
using WinRPR since while I am sure they work well I find the SCS units
to be way overpriced. The results here with WinRPR were not good. On x86
linux with wine WinRPR was problematic and unstable. It was noticeably
more stable on a win10 system but still not quite ready for regular
prime time at least here with the configurations I tested with. If
anyone is using a stable implementation of WinRPR on a x86 system (I do
not use rPi's) whether linux or windows please let me know as I'd like
to compare notes and resume testing.
73 de Rich WA3WLH
|
Glad to see a few replies on this topic, I've been catching a small flu/cold so have been off air and taking time off from work to rest.
I've got some really bad QRM, no idea if it's another digital mode, right by 7.05125USB that wasn't there early this morning in VP9, very strange.
I will hopefully be monitoring on Network 40 (7.104LSB) with my 300Baud 1700cf + 600baud 1225cf modems and beaconing for any USA operator that can hear me.
I collected a total of 80 SSIDs while monitoring Network105 today, and heard from one EU (Netherlands) station being decoded during grayline which is cool
|
If anyone would also like to join in and are on Soundmodem or know how to configure Direwolf for dual operation as well, set up your 2nd modem (use Port 2/B in Easyterm for manual connections!) to AFSK600 baud on the same offset on Network40 and Network 105 as I am on Network40 until morning in the USA (LSB)
?
|
Hello Dom,
1:Fm VP9NO To BEACON <UI C? pid=F0 Len=51>[03:27:26R][---+-][AX25 1690]
VP9NO(-1 MBox) FM72 45W FT991A G5RV & 600bd @1225cf
Copied a bunch of your NET40 sigs overnight at 300b but had 600b set at 1700c so no copy there. I've adjusted 600b to 1225c and will watch for decodes there.
73 de Rich WA3WLH
|
I have to of the SCS modems, and the performance and price are both high. ? You get what you pay for. ? Joseph D. Yuna
Joseph D. Yuna (LCDR USN/ret.) 1684 Pierce Drive Beavercreek, OH 45432-2429 United States of America Primary:? +617.943.2635 W4JDY1953@... ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Chris Lance WW2BSA
Sent: Tuesday, 20 February, 2024 03:56
To: [email protected]; VP9NO Dom <sunday.weaver@...>
Subject: Re: [network105] High-Baud 'Channels' for Network 40, 30, 105?? Well, my comments on hardware. In the pre-internet days, or as I call it, the pre-Packet Apocalyse Era, when packet was thriving in the 1980's, Terminal Node Controllers ruled the planet! The internet came and packet usage declined. Then the hobby gave birth to a new breed of young digital amateur radio operators who didn't know what DOS, Win95 and XP was - no less use it. These operators are Linux and Sound Cards gurus, creating new digital modes. Packet interest began to rise - but had many children and grandchildren on the bands too! LOL The bands have become filled with digital signals of all sorts. So many modes, so many choices, so many ways to operate digitally.? I love the progress made over the decades, but alas, I am still old school. I still play with PK-232/900, PacComm, MFJ and Kantronics TNCs. The KPC-3+ which is still very much in production, has a nice feature or HF packet.?If you set to SOFTWARE, the firmware inside the TNC will detect the presence of data to?enable the carrier detection, allowing operation with un-squelched audio.
Pactor has evolved into Pactor 3 and 4. But I think 4 uses encryption which is a no-no for hams. While those TNCs will do Robust Packet, the hardware is VERY expensive.? Plus, they are proprietary, which I don't like. They are made/created by SCS. Their . There seems to be a cheaper workaround but I am still investigating. There is a Groups.io RPR?/g/robustpacket/ that I think you will find interesting. As a USER my technical background is limited so I can not give you data, but it is my understanding that RPR is very reliable on HF.
I never heard of FreeDATA but I believe I found the and will have to read it further.? I agree regarding standardization of mode. I read somewhere that the following conventions should be followed on HF: Soundcard digital modes = USB. However, Clover, RTTY, PACKET, AMTOR and PACTOR = LSB. Network105 is suppose to be LSB all the time. I think there was a thread here years ago that indicated that if one had a radio not capable of LSB, you could use USB by using a different dials frequency. The bottom line is: use LSB on HF packet. I would like to try 600 baud with you. Alas, I am not retired, have a wife and run several companies. Despite this, my wife loves amateur radio, is studying for her exam and supports my hobby. (Every ham should have a woman like this!) Let me set up things here and then work on details with you on how to proceed. Maybe we can start a new thread in case others want to join in this experiment. It's 3:50 AM Eastern...I have to get to sleep, but looking forward to your reply/post, Dom.
PS - Enjoyed your QRZ.com page!
PPS - I'm a former planetarium director and love astrophotography too!
Hi Chris WW2BSA,
One thing I do not know much about is the 'traditional' packet hardware, like those TNCs for Pactor and Robust Packet and if there's software reimplementations so they're easily usable / accessible? One issue with packet is indeed the lack of standardization, or ease of identifying non-AX25/AFSK300 modes with 'small' bandwidths. I can't tell PACTOR from Robust Packet, and I don't know what benefits there are to using Robust Packet (which doesn't seem to be decodable by 'basic' packet modems?) with the new regulation changes and upcoming packet modems.
for other modems, ARDOP development has been dead for a few years, and in turn now we have FreeDATA based on Codec2 (sadly software is very alpha and buggy on Windows for me, but is under constant development) as a potential longer-term replacement for direwolf/soundmodem. That's probably another huge amount of work to convince people to try since it's not 'true' packet, so best to keep focus on the most popular HF Packet software that I also first tried a decade ago.
One coordination issue that I also have noticed is the USB(uppersideband) users on our networks. I know some operators like to run on say, 7.1013 USB to hear both standard packet, robust packet (nearby) and VARA packets on the main freq? If we've got a mix of sidebands, the community would need to agree to offsets for LSB and USB set radios for these additional 'channels'.
I suppose my beacon could include '600b @1250cf L & 2150cf U' as a notice that I am running a decoder on that area. I see a decent bit of QRM from wider digital/packet from Vara or Winlink at ~750hz or so on 7.104LSB
|
Hi Rich,
Good to hear you're RXing my messages, I'm turning the station back on for hopefully most of this week, 14.105LSB during the day, and sunset (EST) over to 7.104LSB :)
Leave a message on my Mailbox SSID if you can hear me again, and 600baud monitor should still be working to ping too
|
I can confirm that Joe, W7EP (DM91) and I Dom, VP9NO (FM72) conducted a QSO over 600baud on Network 105 just a few minutes ago :)
I note that we have changed the 1225hz (14.105 LSB, Modem 'B' 600baud on Soundmodem) to 1200hz to ensure there is no overlap between normal traffic and us. I had adjusted his TXDelay and TXTail from the default 250ms to 125ms delay + 25ms tail without any dropped decodes and quicker replies.
Soundmodem 1.14 seems to be needed to enable FX25 (RX+TX for me) but Joe was on 1.13 with no issues.
|
Congratulations! Excellent? Hello George Kirn had contact with this data.
I can confirm that Joe, W7EP (DM91) and I Dom, VP9NO (FM72) conducted a QSO over 600baud on Network 105 just a few minutes ago :)
I note that we have changed the 1225hz (14.105 LSB, Modem 'B' 600baud on Soundmodem) to 1200hz to ensure there is no overlap between normal traffic and us. I had adjusted his TXDelay and TXTail from the default 250ms to 125ms delay + 25ms tail without any dropped decodes and quicker replies.
Soundmodem 1.14 seems to be needed to enable FX25 (RX+TX for me) but Joe was on 1.13 with no issues.
|
are you still sending out beacons?
Would anyone know if 600baud is also sideband agnostic? I'm trying to add it to my existing setup with Packet and Robust Packet. (Dial 14.1013 and then 2nd modem on 2.5kHz)
Thanks, Marcel
On Tuesday, February 27th, 2024 at 2:26 PM, VP9NO Dom <sunday.weaver@...> wrote:
I can confirm that Joe, W7EP (DM91) and I Dom, VP9NO (FM72) conducted a QSO over 600baud on Network 105 just a few minutes ago :)
I note that we have changed the 1225hz (14.105 LSB, Modem 'B' 600baud on Soundmodem) to 1200hz to ensure there is no overlap between normal traffic and us. I had adjusted his TXDelay and TXTail from the default 250ms to 125ms delay + 25ms tail without any dropped decodes and quicker replies.
Soundmodem 1.14 seems to be needed to enable FX25 (RX+TX for me) but Joe was on 1.13 with no issues.
|
Excellent Dom and Joe!
?
I'm curious, was the QSO AX.25 or FX.25?
?
Chris ww2bsa
On 02/27/2024 2:26 PM EST VP9NO Dom <sunday.weaver@...> wrote:
?
?
I can confirm that Joe, W7EP (DM91) and I Dom, VP9NO (FM72) conducted a QSO over 600baud on Network 105 just a few minutes ago :)
I note that we have changed the 1225hz (14.105 LSB, Modem 'B' 600baud on Soundmodem) to 1200hz to ensure there is no overlap between normal traffic and us. I had adjusted his TXDelay and TXTail from the default 250ms to 125ms delay + 25ms tail without any dropped decodes and quicker replies.
Soundmodem 1.14 seems to be needed to enable FX25 (RX+TX for me) but Joe was on 1.13 with no issues.
|
Hi Chris and Marcel,
Chris, as far as I could tell I had FX25 enabled for me in Soundmodem but I've never found/understood the main signs on the decoder that you are receiving FX vs AX packets. Given FX25 is essentially invisible to AX25 decoders (it's extra stuff at the start and end apparently, but doesn't interrupt the original ax25 packet) I'd figure I was sending FX25, and Joe was sending AX25. Both of us had Single Bit error correction enabled as a minimum.
Marcel, I do believe it's sideband agnostic as with many packet modes. I know folks who run UpperSB on 14.1013 with no issues.
I believe for you, the Soundmodem decoder center frequency would need to be 500Hz above the normal 300 baud packet area.
I'm moving my 600baud beacons to 1200Hz going forwards as mentioned in my previous post, but any feedback on potential workable offsets to mitigate overlap is appreciated. I found that ~900hz (14.105LSB) could potentially squeeze in an AFSK 1200bd packet transmission channel, but a bit unreasonable this early on :)
Thanks for all the interest and responses, I do need to say that I need to watch out for the QTSoundmodem folks who have their own specific qpsk 600baud mode that isn't compatible with our (and their) afsk 600baud mode. I haven't booted up Direwolf in a while as I found Windows/Uz7ho soundmodem to be slightly better at decoding weaker packets but unsure if that's still true today. Not sure what the differences between AFSK600 and BPSK 600 are, BPSK seems to need more bandwidth and can't decode afsk600.?
For Direwolf, could someone verify a 600baud mode could be easily rigged up on the config files, I'd hope it does for those users as it is the more traditional packet radio modem for Linux. QTSoundmodem exists and is thankfully cross platform, but asking people to switch is a big ask and inconvenience.
Finally, does anyone have experience with testing degraded SSB signals in software? I recall the Rowtel/Codec2/FreeDV and WSJTX folk(s) had a specific tool they used to degrade test audio to HF conditions of various kinds. I'm interested in anyone's experience or practical tests on how 300 baud compares to 600 and 1200 baud on HF, given both parties will be running FX25 to increase error correction. With 600baud being wider and faster, I would assume it needs slightly more SNR for a consistent decode, but at the same time, unpredictable fading would impact it less since the transmission is much quicker. Hmm.
|
Thanks for the reply Dom, but I am still unsure of one thing: was this a FX.25 to AX.25 QSO or FX.25 to FX.25, or ???
Please clarify. Tnx.
Chris ww2bsa
|
Chris Lance WW2BSA
W4JDY