[RTTY] Re: PSK31 -vs- PACTOR II/III

[Dave]

The attraction of soundcard-based implementations is not simply reduced
expense, its also increased functionality:

- panoramic tuning via a waterfall or spectrum display

- the ability to decode multiple signals and extract relevant information
(e.g. callsigns)

- extensibility (PSKCORE source code is now available under the GPL license)

    73,

        Dave, AA6YQ

-----Original Message-----
From: rtty-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On
Behalf Of Duane Budd
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 7:43 AM
To: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: [RTTY] Re: PSK31 -vs- PACTOR II/III


I agree with Phil. There is little doubt in my mind that the cheapness of
PSK31 and the other so-called sound-card modes is what really got hams
interested. After all, one does not need to purchase ANYTHING to get into
PSK31. If you have a rig and a computer, you are good to go.

Pactor is a dying mode, except for the mailboxes. I deeply regret this. I
have been mostly digital since the late 70's and came up through RTTY, Amtor
and Pactor, which, in my opinion, is the best of all digital modes,
especially Pactor-II and -III. But it is difficult to find a Pactor ragchew
these days. And so I am operating the soundcard modes, and RTTY nowadays.

One thing about Pactor-II and -III that is little known, apparently, is that
this is the one mode that does what the FCC regs really require: it sets the
power to that necessary to sustain the QSO. It does this automatically and
without operator intervention.

Happy New year, Phil. I hope to see you one of these days on the air.


Duane Budd
w5ben at arrl.net

_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY at contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty