Chen hit the nail on the head, thanks!
Both TNC's and software solutions have their place. Using software
can be beneficial when the installation is properly implemented. I
do question the relative 'ease' a novice doing a good install job.
The 'slap-dab' nature of humans is to read the instructions AFTER
installation, if there is a need. Simplicity of installation means
if it works 'right out of the box' then it doesn't need attention
-- sort of like installing a dipole that 'nearly loads' and
and unknowingly accepting less than adequate results.
There is a difference between doing it right and doing a quick install
job. All I'm saying is that software installation can be challenging to
get top performance without a way to measure, test and 'tweak' errors.
Thanks, Chen for your insight.
Phil Sussman
Clayton, Ohio
-------------
Quoting Kok Chen <chen@mac.com>:
>
> On Jan 29, 2005, at 6:23 AM, psussman@pactor.com wrote:
> > Rather that TNCs are easier to set up
> > because they come with instructions ....
>
> I think I agree with Phil here.
>
> My twist on the statement is that the reason could be because a
> software based modem can (emphasis on the word "can") be better than
> TNCs so it may be easier set up your station to max out the decoding
> capabilities of a TNC than it is to max out the decoding capabilities
> of a software modem.
>
> > ... while software stuff requires a lot of patience or a dedicated
> > Elmer to get it right.
>
> I don't think it is difficult to provide the tools within the modem app
> itself to aid proper set up, and be able to bypass a human Elmer. An
> example of a good tool is actually in a hardware box -- the Timewave
> 599zx. That box has an AC millivoltmeter built right in. You can very
> easily adjust the gain of the audio chain so that its A/D converter is
> optimally set up. It also has a built in AFSK generator (generates
> tones, diddles, RYRY) for adjusting the transmitter.
>
> As a couple of folks have repeatedly mentioned here in the past: if you
> are not printing at least as well with a proven good software modem
> than you can with a TNC, the likelihood is you need to look closer at
> how everything is put together at your station.
>
> I would first make sure that the A/D converter is top notched (don't
> just look at how many bits it supports but look for the actual noise
> floor numbers, whether it supports balanced inputs, etc etc -- the
> stuff the professional recording world looks for), with gains in the
> audio chain adjusted for maximum dynamic range and never clipping
> (RITTY has always bragged about the use of a non-limiting front end,
> for what I believe are solid reasons), and with as much hum/noise
> removed as possible. In most cases, with the basics done properly, you
> can do as well or better than a TNC using just a good "textbook"
> software modem with no special tweaks.
>
> 73
> Chen, W7AY
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|