Print

[KE7FD]

Just went looking for psk31 QSO's on 40 and 20: zilch. so I'll check out JS8Call.

Thanks again.

[K0UA]

I usually see more psk-31 than JS8 call. But you live in a different part of the world, but those have been my findings.

[N1UKX]

Don't just go looking for PSK31 signals, try calling CQ.
You may be surprised...

[WB8VLC]

Really a Conversational digital mode? 

The only one that really works reliably under fading conditions found on HF and 6 meters for me is what is called CW and I use all of the digits on my right hand to do this mode.

[K0UA]

Really a Conversational digital mode? 

The only one that really works reliably under fading conditions found on HF and 6 meters for me is what is called CW and I use all of the digits on my right hand to do this mode.

Olivia is SO much more reliable under fading conditions than CW it is not even a comparison.

[KE7FD]

Short of parsing through all the digi modes to find one that decodes is laborious. And let me pause for a moment and just say, yes I know CW is the original digital mode. I was first licensed in 1972 and was restricted to CW for some time as a novice. But time marches on and things evolve. Just as I learned how to use a typewriter back in the olden days, I'm not turned off using a keyboard. If there's anything a bit more frustrating about the various digital modes is they all seem to be crammed into the same few kilohertz which to me seems a bit inefficient. At the same time I think it would be bad to gobble up all of the available CW space by a myriad of digital modes. I'm not sure what the best answer or solution is in this case but I still want to be able to participate in SKCC contests and not to be impacted by digital signals.

[N6YWU]

FT8 can transmit 13 characters of free text (every 30 seconds) anywhere in a band where digital modes are allowed. 

Just skip the computerized auto-sequencing and find a free frequency somewhere out of the contest-exchange-only sub-band.  ID at least every 10 minutes.

True...but why not use JS8Call instead?

JS8Call is a PC application.  Not a well documented digital mode.

[K3XR]

Love CW, but it's a stretch to say that none of the digital modes can outperform it when it comes to reliability.   Another word also comes to mind...reality.

[W1VT]

https://hamspots.net/
I primarily use this site to locate DX stations, but it can also be used to set up schedules for less common digital modes.

Zak W1VT

[W6BP]

Short of parsing through all the digi modes to find one that decodes is laborious.

This can be a problem, but at least two digital communications programs--FL-DIGI and DM-780--offer a feature called either RxID/TxID (FL--DIGI) or RSID(DM-780). By enabling this feature, a short digital burst identifying the mode is transmitted before the beginning of a digital transmission. The person on the receiving end sees an indication of the mode and frequency of the transmission, including a link you can click for a quick QSY and mode change.

The bad news is, not everyone uses this feature. The good news is, you quickly get used to what Olivia and Contestia (similar to Olivia, but with a reduced, all-caps character set and somewhat faster transmission rates) look like, and the bandwidth of the transmissions and the number of tones are easily picked off the waterfall, so figuring out which mode is being transmitted isn't that hard. Still, it would be nice if operators took the 15 minutes needed to read up on and enable this feature.

[KE7FD]

Love CW, but it's a stretch to say that none of the digital modes can outperform it when it comes to reliability.   Another word also comes to mind...reality.

Our CW guys always outperform the voice and digital guys at FD, year after year.

Glen

[WO7R]

The number one problem with modes like Olivia (and getting there even with the PSK stuff with new variants creeping in) is that it isn't really standard.

There are too many parameters and too many sub modes which amount, in practical terms, to the equivalent of dialects in language.

The vast majority of hams do not want every QSO on a conversational digital mode to become a snipe hunt.

I don't know how, at this late date, we can all agree on some sort of Olivia mode that everyone uses or at least everyone uses to CQ and then tells how to switch to the desired one..

The latter, if we could somehow establish it, probably gets Olivia many more fans.  But, we don't even have that and, to my knowledge, no one is working on that or promoting that.

As as result, when I see what is probably an Olivia signal, I move on.  It's an entirely unnecessary adventure.

We could, if we wanted to, turn ordinary RTTY into the same thing.  There's actually all kinds of shifts out there.  There are even alternate "alphabets" to the ITA-2 that we use.  There are also alternate speeds.

But, while we could vary all of that stuff and maybe once did, we smartly standardized on the shift and the baud rate and the "alphabet".  As a result, any halfway awake ham can deploy RTTY successfully.

Until at least a common CQ format emerges for some of these newer digital modes, we will only see (for the most part) a small community of folks who know how they want to set all those parameters "today" with their immediate buddy and that will be that.

They are not really developed for random hams to find each other.  PSK31 is just about the last conversational mode that did so.

Still, it would be nice if operators took the 15 minutes needed to read up on and enable this feature.

Or we could actually standardize and avoid the whole thing.  The point ought to be conversation.  If you want to do experiments in trade-offs on bandwidth versus symbol speed and so on, be my guest.  But, if the point is to have a conversational mode, then twiddling all these dials is frankly a burden and a great explanation as to why they aren't more popular.

Pick a side.  Conversation or experiment.  Can't really expect to have both.

[K0UA]

The number one problem with modes like Olivia (and getting there even with the PSK stuff with new variants creeping in) is that it isn't really standard.

There are too many parameters and too many sub modes which amount, in practical terms, to the equivalent of dialects in language.

The vast majority of hams do not want every QSO on a conversational digital mode to become a snipe hunt.

I don't know how, at this late date, we can all agree on some sort of Olivia mode that everyone uses or at least everyone uses to CQ and then tells how to switch to the desired one..

The latter, if we could somehow establish it, probably gets Olivia many more fans.  But, we don't even have that and, to my knowledge, no one is working on that or promoting that.

As as result, when I see what is probably an Olivia signal, I move on.  It's an entirely unnecessary adventure.

We could, if we wanted to, turn ordinary RTTY into the same thing.  There's actually all kinds of shifts out there.  There are even alternate "alphabets" to the ITA-2 that we use.  There are also alternate speeds.

But, while we could vary all of that stuff and maybe once did, we smartly standardized on the shift and the baud rate and the "alphabet".  As a result, any halfway awake ham can deploy RTTY successfully.

Until at least a common CQ format emerges for some of these newer digital modes, we will only see (for the most part) a small community of folks who know how they want to set all those parameters "today" with their immediate buddy and that will be that.

They are not really developed for random hams to find each other.  PSK31 is just about the last conversational mode that did so.

Still, it would be nice if operators took the 15 minutes needed to read up on and enable this feature.

Or we could actually standardize and avoid the whole thing.  The point ought to be conversation.  If you want to do experiments in trade-offs on bandwidth versus symbol speed and so on, be my guest.  But, if the point is to have a conversational mode, then twiddling all these dials is frankly a burden and a great explanation as to why they aren't more popular.

Pick a side.  Conversation or experiment.  Can't really expect to have both.

Truer words were never spoken.  That is why conversational digital modes have failed miserably. PSK 31 has remained in use even though most of the Olivia modes are "better".

 It is the "balkanization" of digital conversational modes with a new one coming out every week for many years.

 People just HAD to show how clever they were by inventing a "new" mode, never thinking about what it would do to the Amateur community. It is just like people "having" to put up a new repeater in an area awash in repeaters. It fractures the community. Too many repeaters in the world now and there are too many conversational digital modes.

 Fortunately FT8 fixed all of that. AND as a bonus you don't have to have a conversation either to work it. A win-win for many hams as many hams don't want to converse in the first place and couldn't carry on a conversation if their lives depended on it.  Hence all the macros on PSK31.  "operator created in 1949"   jeez o pete. Everyone "hates" all the macros in use on PSK31, yet, there they are.

[K3XR]

Really a Conversational digital mode? 

The only one that really works reliably under fading conditions found on HF and 6 meters for me is what is called CW and I use all of the digits on my right hand to do this mode.

Love CW, but it's a stretch to say that none of the digital modes can outperform it when it comes to reliability.   Another word also comes to mind...reality.

Our CW guys always outperform the voice and digital guys at FD, year after year.

Glen

A CW FD station may very well "outperform the voice and digital guys".  The statement involved was the reliability of the different modes under fading conditions.  That may or may not be a contributing factor to CW FD station performance. It could be a simple matter of the CW station having more qualified and experienced operators.

[K0UA]

A CW FD station may very well "outperform the voice and digital guys".  The statement involved was the reliability of the different modes under fading conditions.  That may or may not be a contributing factor to CW FD station performance. It could be a simple matter of the CW station having more qualified and experienced operators.[/quote]

That has been my experience, that the CW guys are more like "pros", and the phone and digital guys are sometimes yes and sometimes no. PLUS a CW contact can be conducted in less than half the time of an FT8 contact.  An FT4 contact comes close but I believe CW with good operators on each end is still a bit faster. Phone contacts might or might not be as fast, depending on operators. They can be.  Or not. The thing about FT8 and FT4 is they are relentless, always a bunch of stations to work and they are all on one frequency. It plods, but it is relentless. Of course the digital operators get tired too.