[RTTY] PSK31 -vs- PACTOR II/III

[psussman at pactor.com]

Perhaps you misunderstood my intent; for I was not pleading any intent for using
(or not using) PACTOR or any other mode. My observation was that COST was the
driving factor, not quality. 

Likewise, one can disgard amateur radio all together and merely type messages
back and forth one letter at a time on your mobile PDA and and accomplish the
same thing. Why don't we do that? COST... for (I contend) if data message
exchanges were free and unemcumbered by things like ISPs and IPs and spam
networks, even running PSK31 would be decried as too expensive.

I'm not a contester and if I need to send a .JPG I usually use the internet. I
have transferred .JPG and .EXE files via PACTOR and it goes pretty well. But
size/bandwidth is always the issue. Again, it becomes a cost/quality balancing act. 

Of course, every mode has a purpose - and everyone has their individual
preference. That's fine. My point, I suppose, is that in amateur radio, cost is
a prime consideration when deciding those preferences.

Regarding your comment about 'fun' that's in the eye of the beholder. Hey it's
no fun for me to run RTTY with someone overdriving AFSK/PSK 5 khz away.

Enjoy...

Phil Sussman - N8PS

---------------

Quoting Hadi Teichmann <dj2pj at t-online.de>:

> 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