[RTTY] PSK31 -vs- PACTOR II/III

[Hadi Teichmann]

Phil,  I can possibly answer your (maybe rhetorical) question in the 
first paragraph of your e-mail.

You are  right: PACTOR is superior to RTTY etc. in all mentioned 
technical respects (although I have my doubts with "operation"). This 
superiority means a lot. But it won't help PACTOR very much as far as 
attractiveness for a majority is concerned. Amateur radio is a hobby: we 
pursue this hobby for - more or less - nothing else but /fun/./ / With a 
very few exceptions, a radio amateur (sic!)  will  never be/ forced/ to 
transmit or receive, or even switch on his transceiver. There's no 
third-party task set for communicating a certain contents at and within 
a certain time, free of faults, at utmost speed, etc. etc. Moreover, in 
their communication radio amateurs mostly use texts with extremely high 
redundancy and a high degree of re-cognition and repetition. Thus, 
error-checking , higher speeds etc. might be fascinating features /per/ 
/se/, but they are of very limited applicative value to the vast 
majority of radio amateurs. In this sense, PACTOR is sort of  shooting 
sparrows with cannons. From a non-technocratic, /homo-ludens/ 
standpoint,  PACTOR is undoubtedly even inferior to most other modes  - 
because, for whatever single reason, /the other modes simply produce 
more fun/, and therefore more attraction. This has nothing to do with 
high or low costs either. (I bought a very expensive PTC-II years ago 
and never used it again after a dozen PACTOR-QSOs, not even for RTTY or 
PSK, where soundcards and their PC programs lead to equivalent or much 
better results. I know that many others could tell you a similar story...).

Phil, I'm afraid your question is also rather confusing from even 
another standpoint. It belongs to the very advantages of amateur radio, 
that no ham is ever compelled to make the choice for just one mode. Why 
should he? He's simply allowed to love and adore and to practize them 
/all/. There's neither a necessity nor a logic for one mode to replace 
another or even gain "superiority". No mode can ever be "out-dated"  
(another of these "replacement"-arguments roaming about) as long as it 
is still in use and loved by some members of our community. /Chaqun à 
son goût!/  A niche for everyone! We should be very, very happy and 
grateful that amateur radio, in this world of elbows and survival of the 
fittest, is far from following utilitarian or /homo-faber/ fantasies!

Don't you feel that your pleading for PACTOR as the very dominant and 
only mode is a bit like trying to convince a hundred-metre runner to be 
faster by using a car, or a mountaineer to better take a helicopter? Or 
all of us to better wear a uniform?

73 Hadi DJ2PJ
 
psussman at pactor.com wrote:

>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 at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>  
>