Message-ID: <E1C8E31C63924867818D968E9BC3D50A@AGB>
From: "Graham" <g8fzk@g8fzk.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <bfa.3287d921.369a2605@aol.com> <5ADF9C3861D84576BE1EF01D07F6D67D@AGB> <232F9AD021FE40A98CE6527B4DA482B5@AGB> <19EC4B1A1B35448A802DB3E4DEC497D7@JimPC>
In-Reply-To: <19EC4B1A1B35448A802DB3E4DEC497D7@JimPC>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:48:15 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Importance: Normal
Subject: Re: LF: DominoEX and FEC 
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Fine Jim,

Did you save a copy of the text ?

When you say the fec took longer to  recover , was that at the expense of 
missing text ?

I assume that the system is not quite as robust as  olivia if you where not 
seeing 100%
decodes? But at the data rate , that might be a miss observation ?

 I had a couple of qso's with olivia on 7 mhz last night  8x250 it did 
produce quite a good copy in qsb and recovered
very quickly .. may be a little wide for 7 mhz  but with the shaped 
modulation envelope,
very  little spread. the data rate is 'just' qso  speed

Thanks for standing by

Graham ..




--------------------------------------------------
From: "James Moritz" <james.moritz@btopenworld.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 12:23 AM
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Subject: LF: DominoEX and FEC

> Dear Graham, LF Group,
>
> Quite interesting to watch the two modes (BTW, the continuous text gives a
> much better comparison, thanks). At present, signal strength has improved 
> a
> lot, and both signals are clearly audible between fades, which are 20dB or
> more (see attachment). When near maximum, both modes print almost 100%; 
> the
> FEC version corrects the occasional error due to static cracks and pops, 
> so
> has fewer errors, but throughput is only half. When there are bigger
> crashes, errors appear in the FEC copy as well, and it seems to take 
> longer
> for FEC to "recover", so there are also more gaps in the copy, although
> probably less actual printed errors. It also seems to take longer for the
> FEC mode to recover after a deep fade. So the FEC does something, but in
> this implementation, not really what you want... I suspect it would be 
> more
> advantageous to go to the narrower-band Domino EX4 sub-mode rather than 
> use
> the FEC.
>
> Cheers, Jim Moritz
> 73 de M0BMU
>
>
>



>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1886 - Release Date: 1/10/2009 
> 18:01
>