Hi all... Just thought I'd throw in my 2cents worth. PSK popularity seems to be
driven by its low cost with a side product its reliability under moderate to
adverse conditions. By comparison in terms of speed, operation, and error
checking, PACTOR is by far superior. The technical tests prove it, everyone
knows it. So why isn't PACTOR the mode of choice these days?
First PACTOR is an ARQ mode, which requires a link. Roundtables are difficult as
the FEC mode loses sync. But, COST is the factor. When PACTOR I arrived on the
scene every manufacturer (AEA, KAM, etc.) offered their 'own' version of PACTOR.
some were better than others. Many took financial shortcuts offering boxes that
had awful performance... causing PACTOR (as a mode) to take an unwarranted hit.
Thus, PACTOR II/III protocol is tightly controlled. Sadly, to Hams that adds
expense.. unwanted expense.. PACTOR II (narrow) and III (wide) offer quality far
beyond RTTY or PSK or MMTY. Like Clover, PACTOR is more expensive than the
average 'free' mode.
By the way CW, RTTY, and PSK31 are all subset modes within a PACTOR-PTC. Even
PACKET (HF/VHF) is available for those die-hard cluster fans. Yes, it costs
more. The best usually does.
Phil Sussman - Editor
PACTOR NEWS
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|