Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+Re\:\s+PSK31\s+\-vs\-\s+PACTOR\s+II\/III\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+Re\:\s+PSK31\s+\-vs\-\s+PACTOR\s+II\/III\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] Re: PSK31 -vs- PACTOR II/III (score: 1): Author: "Duane Budd" <w5ben@arrl.net>; Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:43:10 -0500; I agree with Phil. There is little doubt in my mind that the cheapness of PSK31 and the other so-called sound-card modes is what really got hams interested. After all, one does not need to purchase A; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-01/msg00246.html (7,088 bytes)
2. RE: [RTTY] Re: PSK31 -vs- PACTOR II/III (score: 1): Author: "Dave" <aa6yq@ambersoft.com>; Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:31:06 -0500; The attraction of soundcard-based implementations is not simply reduced expense, its also increased functionality: - panoramic tuning via a waterfall or spectrum display - the ability to decode multi; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-01/msg00247.html (8,293 bytes)
3. RE: [RTTY] Re: PSK31 -vs- PACTOR II/III (score: 1): Author: "Duane Budd" <w5ben@arrl.net>; Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:25:29 -0500; What you say is true. But there is not ONE error-free mode using a soundcard. Until that happens, none of the modes will ever equal Pactor for reliable, error-free communications. And, most of the so; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-01/msg00249.html (7,852 bytes)
4. RE: [RTTY] Re: PSK31 -vs- PACTOR II/III (score: 1): Author: "Dave" <aa6yq@ambersoft.com>; Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:49:37 -0500; There is an error-free protocol hosted on a PC and soundcard; see http://www.eham.net/articles/9785 . Even better, they are working on "busy detectors" for other modes so that when used in semi-autom; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-01/msg00251.html (8,676 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]