[pskmail] Re: R: Re: Modes, comparison and usage

  • From: Pär Crusefalk <per@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: pskmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:32:54 +0100

Thanks John,

Yes, I noted it but just as you mention it contradicts my experience of
the mode. When map and reality do not match I was taught to not trust
the map. It could be correct but I think we need more work done to be
sure about this.

I am somewhat preparing for this winters skiing excursions and I intend
to compare modes then. I'll be somewhat further north and I was thinking
abt adding a way to just note beacon success rate in the client. That
way it could be "sounding" the channel all day and I could change modes
every day to compare and create nice & shiny graphs.
Perhaps we can find a way to merge all our test results too?

I will add THOR 8. I just figured it was too slow so didn't. Regarding
the upper and lower case I tried to find some data on that but could not
find any. The best page I could find about the mode is here:
Perhaps you know where I can find out more?

Yes, MFSK should be there too. Is MFSK16 and 32 all I need to add? 
I have little experience there, I think I have only abt 10 QSO's and
then only using MFSK16. MFSK64 should perhaps be left out due to the
bandwidth needed, then again it could be useful on higher frequencies?

Another mode that "everyone", including K2MO, seems to get good results
with is Olivia. Of course there are some obvious problems with it but
perhaps we could overcome them?
- 7-bit alphabet (should be ok)
- Excessive latency (we already adjust that for modes used now)
- At least a million different submodes, perhaps we could use 16-500?
Unfortunately I have very little user experience...

Perhaps we should have a mode comparison table on the wiki so that we
can all update it and link to our test results?

73 de Per, sm0rwo

ons 2010-01-27 klockan 11:36 +1100 skrev John Douyere:
> Hi, 
> This is a good table.
> I am not sure if you guys picked up the interesting simulation done by
> Tony (K2MO) on the pskr modes:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/34090 and
> subsequent messages.
> But it would suggest that pskr is not suited for NVIS.
> Interestingly in my experience with 80M NVIS (150 to 200KM strait line
> distance to server) PSKR seemed to have some advantage. 
> Is this your experience too or was I too "hopeful"?
> Also, in the mode table can we add THOR8. I used it regularly for
> noisy band conditions and it works a treat...just very slow: launch
> the client application, connect, send the list of commands and get a
> cup (or two) of tea, or better a nice fresh beer...it should be
> finished when you are.
> Also, the speed for lower case and capital letters should be different
> for the THOR modes since it also uses a varicode (the MFSK one) and it
> should be about the same speed ratio than for the PSK varicode between
> the two.
> I would suggest to include the MFSK modes too. MFSK32 gives a good
> balance of speed and robustness and MFSK16 a good level of robustness
> although it can be difficult to frequency align at times (this is
> especially true for MFSK8 that I don't use at all for that reason
> despite it's great sensitivity).
> Best regards,
> John

Other related posts: