Please note that if you do any comparisons - there are two methods for =
PSK31, BPSK and QPSK. While nearly all software supports both, 99.9% of =
all QSOs on the air now will be in BPSK, which does not have as good =
weak signal performance as QPSK. This is largely under-utilized and =
more DX would get worked if QPSK were used instead.
Also, other digital modes such as MFSK16 will out-perform PSK31 and has =
a bandwidth closer to RTTY. If one is contemplating a switch to another =
mode, MFSK16 is worth a look. There are other capabilities in MFSK16 =
such as error correction which also helps.
I recommend Hamscope software, which does all three modes.
See:=20
http://www.qsl.net/zl1bpu/MFSK/INDEX.html
http://home.teleport.com/~nb6z/compare1.htm
http://users.mesatop.com/~ghansen/
73...Robert W5IUA
> Don's comments are right on, as usual. I would love to experiment =
with
> PSK31 in a high power, narrow bandwidth configuration, but to do that =
in
> the existing segment would bring down the wrath of everyone there.
>=20
> In the meantime, would anyone like to make some PSK31 vs RTTY
> comparisons in terms of weak signal copyability? We could try using
> very low power - one watt or so - and send a canned text for =
comparison.
> Please email me or post a reply to this message and let's set some
> schedules. =20
>=20
> Should be interesting!
>=20
> 73, Bill W7TI
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
|