Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mj01.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 03AB338000199; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 11:23:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1UDH7F-0000l2-Ql for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 16:22:53 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1UDH7F-0000kt-6n for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 16:22:53 +0000 Received: from out1.ip06ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.242]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1UDH7D-0007fw-L8 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 16:22:52 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApQBADNTN1ECZMUt/2dsb2JhbAANN4ghuUeCW4Fugx0BAQEBAyMPAQUzHgsJDwICBRYLAgIJAwIBAgFFEwgBAbEacZJigSOMKAqBPhaCF4ETA5ZLk3iBaQk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,795,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="567926362" Received: from host-2-100-197-45.as13285.net (HELO [127.0.0.1]) ([2.100.197.45]) by out1.ip06ir2.opaltelecom.net with ESMTP; 06 Mar 2013 16:22:29 +0000 Message-ID: <51376D44.7000605@psk31.plus.com> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 16:22:28 +0000 From: g3zjo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <51371E11.6020502@psk31.plus.com> <513746F3.7090508@psk31.plus.com> <84B77AD08F5F42849E6492B9048EC349@IBM7FFA209F07C> <51375C40.6050501@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <513761CD.8070107@psk31.plus.com> <51376AF3.9040409@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> In-Reply-To: <51376AF3.9040409@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130306-0, 06/03/2013), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: MFSK4 is slower than RTTY but live keyboard mode and has FEC. I am looking for you now 73 Eddie . On 06/03/2013 16:12, Stefan Schäfer wrote: > Hi Eddie, > > Yes, i can try. However i have no idea if it will be "better". Not an > expert on the subject. > What i like is such a fast mode like RTTY, maybe 40 Baud would be fine > as well, but not much slower and no limited number of characters. I > like the function to just write down and the program sends it > immediately :-) > So if there is another mode that has some error correction, it would > be an improvement i think. And AMTOR has it, if i understood correctly. > So what the hell is MFSK-4? Yes, Multi-Frequency-Shift-Keying with 4 > tones, fine. But what does it offer? We can just try but i would like > to understand at least basically what i'm doing. > > I will now switch to MFSK-4, same QRG. > > 73, Stefan > > > Am 06.03.2013 16:33, schrieb g3zjo: >> Hi Stefan >> >> On 06/03/2013 15:09, Stefan Schäfer wrote: >>> Eddie, Gary, Chris, Minto, MF, >>> >>> I've read a bit about RTTY and AMTOR in Wikipedia. Maybe AMTOR would >>> help us a bit more, even when not used in that ARQ mode but also in >>> beacon stile, due to the FEC? >>> >> MultiPSK has AMTOR with FEC, yes we don't want ARQ do we. I have run >> it, same width as RTTY the FEC may help but its just as fast it is >> QSO mode. >> >> Again I will ask the question, why is MFSK not being considered I am >> running it at the moment on 478.200. MFSK4 is on Fldigi can you try >> it now.? >> >> Eddie >>> Eddie, what was the name of the program that offers that mode for >>> free? I cannot find your recent email where you already mentioned it. >>> >>> 73, Stefan >>> >>> >> > > [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-Scan-Signature: ac0f6ff1af52b6036ac1f4fe0c2bd52c Subject: Re: LF: RTTY vs.MFSK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false x-aol-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d7b9551376d75328a X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none MFSK4 is slower than RTTY but live keyboard mode and has FEC. I am looking for you now 73 Eddie . On 06/03/2013 16:12, Stefan Schäfer wrote: > Hi Eddie, > > Yes, i can try. However i have no idea if it will be "better". Not an > expert on the subject. > What i like is such a fast mode like RTTY, maybe 40 Baud would be fine > as well, but not much slower and no limited number of characters. I > like the function to just write down and the program sends it > immediately :-) > So if there is another mode that has some error correction, it would > be an improvement i think. And AMTOR has it, if i understood correctly. > So what the hell is MFSK-4? Yes, Multi-Frequency-Shift-Keying with 4 > tones, fine. But what does it offer? We can just try but i would like > to understand at least basically what i'm doing. > > I will now switch to MFSK-4, same QRG. > > 73, Stefan > > > Am 06.03.2013 16:33, schrieb g3zjo: >> Hi Stefan >> >> On 06/03/2013 15:09, Stefan Schäfer wrote: >>> Eddie, Gary, Chris, Minto, MF, >>> >>> I've read a bit about RTTY and AMTOR in Wikipedia. Maybe AMTOR would >>> help us a bit more, even when not used in that ARQ mode but also in >>> beacon stile, due to the FEC? >>> >> MultiPSK has AMTOR with FEC, yes we don't want ARQ do we. I have run >> it, same width as RTTY the FEC may help but its just as fast it is >> QSO mode. >> >> Again I will ask the question, why is MFSK not being considered I am >> running it at the moment on 478.200. MFSK4 is on Fldigi can you try >> it now.? >> >> Eddie >>> Eddie, what was the name of the program that offers that mode for >>> free? I cannot find your recent email where you already mentioned it. >>> >>> 73, Stefan >>> >>> >> > >