Print

[KE7FD]

James, it's funny you should point out the difference between operators; I just had a conversation with a buddy about that very aspect of the operators on the 13 Colonies contest. K2C was telling [phone] folks he was going to call by number yet either inexperienced or [fill in the blank] operators kept jumping into the frey out of turn making it impossible for him to manage the pileup. In frustration he finally just went QRT after telling everyone they weren't listening. So I don't know if we have phone operators who are so new to HF contesting, they only know how to use a microphone that they don't bother to learn proper etiquette, or we have idiots who are still alive and well.  I agree that CW operators not only have better skills but they also have better manners and etiquette.

IMHO,
Glen

[KH6AQ]

Conversational digital mode? RTTY

[K0UA]

Conversational digital mode? RTTY

Well it is a nice conversational digital mode, and it sounds pleasant to the ear, not that it matters, BUT it has ZERO error correction. It is even worse than PSK31 for working in the noise, AND it isn't even close to Olivia in digging down into the noise. Could not even hold a candle. It is very very rarely used for a conversation between two amateurs anymore. Hard to find a RTTY signal all day, and it has became rare even for DXpeditions in the last couple of years, replaced by FT8. But during RTTY contest's it reigns supreme.

[KE7FD]

And RTTY is such a bandwidth hog and like he said there's no error correction. Next to CW, RTTY's the next oldest "digital" mode but it's based on 1930's tech. Don't get me wrong, I like switching my DSLR to B&W sometimes and I'm nostalgic for vertical rolling when political ads come on the TV. With so much congestion in the lower part of some bands, to have a RTTY QSO fire up nearby, is reason enough to turn off the radio and take up a new hobby like chewing glass shards. I'm just saying...

Glen

[WO7R]

Well, if I want digital conversation, PSK31 is the bomb.

But, RTTY has this important advantage over OLIVIA et al. :   It is standardized.  OLIVIA and things like it are basically failures whatever their technical advantages because too few of us, myself included, want to go to the work of figuring out which of the many sub-modes are in use.

If OLIVIA guys want to get somewhere, they should meet in a broom closet somewhere and pick a standard set of parameters that 90 percent and more of future OLIVIA QSOs will use.

If they want to keep experimenting with the various parameters with their three friends, that's fine, but if they want the rest of us to come along, we need standardization.  Just tell the rest of us what it is.  Don't make us guess; we haven't found you up to now and we never will.

In the meantime, despite its technical flaws, RTTY is superior precisely because people can actually do it, errors and all.

The real problem, evidenced by the huge popularity of FT8, is that most of us don't actually want conversation most of the time.

But if we do, it is standardized modes for the win.

[W1VT]

If you can't see any digital signals, consider calling CQ with an amplifier to run high power.  A big signal will attract more attention.
You may be able to converse with stations that can't hear you otherwise due to bad antennas or high noise levels.
If you are worried about causing interference Hamspots can be used to verify clear frequencies before you transmit.

Zak W1VT

[K3XR]

If OLIVIA guys want to get somewhere, they should meet in a broom closet somewhere and pick a standard set of parameters that 90 percent and more of future OLIVIA QSOs will use.

Agreed.  Widespread use of that mode seems to have zero chance unless that were to take place.  Being user-friendly is a huge factor when it comes to digital modes.  For the last couple of weeks have been trying out VarAC which has some nice features but is not particularly user-friendly.

Part of the attraction of ham radio in this instance is to try different modes and that's a good thing, but where does it end?  If you have 10 people operating on 10 different digital modes, where are the conversations taking place?

[W9AC]

Being user-friendly is a huge factor when it comes to digital modes. 

Right.  Easy to install, easy to set up, easy to understand, easy to control, and easy to make contacts. 

Primates can be trained to make FT8 QSOs.

Paul, W9AC

[K3XR]

Being user-friendly is a huge factor when it comes to digital modes. 

Right.  Easy to install, easy to set up, easy to understand, easy to control, and easy to make contacts. 

Primates can be trained to make FT8 QSOs.

Paul, W9AC

Glad you enjoy FT-8.  I operate it now and then, but would not want a steady diet of it. I prefer the conversational digital modes.

[AA6YQ]

If OLIVIA guys want to get somewhere, they should meet in a broom closet somewhere and pick a standard set of parameters that 90 percent and more of future OLIVIA QSOs will use.

"Too many parameters" is not Olivia's only problem. The absence of panoramic reception is also a serious deficiency. The ability to quickly see who is workable on a particular band helped drive the rapid adoption of both PSK31 and FT8.

[WO7R]

I think that if OLIVIA standardized on a set of parameters, then at least for those stations participating in the standard parameters, they would shortly have software with some sort of panoramic reception.

That's not a big investment these days.  FLDIGI has it for RTTY and PSK and, as far as I can tell, any specific digital mode with whatever parameters you set.  In fact, if OLIVIA did standardize, it is quite possible that FLDIGI would have panoramic reception immediately.

I don't run FLDIGI every day, but that's my best understanding of how it works.

If I am wrong, I think it reasonable for that to get patched up shortly thereafter.

But, I think you're on to something.  The lack of standardization is a disincentive to other useful features.  Fix that and much else gets fixed.

[AA6YQ]

I think that if OLIVIA standardized on a set of parameters, then at least for those stations participating in the standard parameters, they would shortly have software with some sort of panoramic reception.

Even the most narrow OLIVIA modes are too wide for useful panoramic reception on a receiver with a 3 KHz passband. An wideband SDR-only application could overcome this, but that the number of participants would dramatically decrease.

[WO7R]

Well, you probably have superior insight into these modes compared to me.

If you're right, and no software can decode overlapping OLIVIA streams, then it isn't nearly as good as its proponents say it is.

I don't know how wide FT8 is supposed to be -- maybe 50 Hz?  But I do know that it is possible for signals only one Hz apart from each other to be successfully decoded -- at least some of the time.  I find that remarkable, but I have observed it far too often.

If OLIVIA streams cannot be sorted out the same way, if some amount of stream overlap cannot be managed, then whatever its proponents claim for it, it is too spectrally inefficient after all for popular use.  Precisely because we can't decode-and-share.

Maybe its broadband nature has the kind of niche profile of JT65 or something, but even JT65 can manage a certain amount of overlap, too.  I've even done that one on EME.