Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Best DX Low Wattage Digital protocol for verbose Comm on 20m/40m?  (Read 4957 times)
WALTERB
Member

Posts: 550




Ignore
« on: May 13, 2015, 08:09:28 AM »

I have a project I'm working on and I would like to know your opinions on the best communication protocol for DX.

Must be low wattage (Like JT65)

Must allow for verbose communication (Unlike JT65).

Must be good for 40M, and perhaps 20M bands

I'm assuming the majority of people will recommend CW, which is fine. If that's the best option.

thanks in advance.
 
Logged
KJ3N
Member

Posts: 516




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2015, 08:17:29 AM »

Must be low wattage (Like JT65)

This myth needs to die. JT65 is NOT a low power mode. It is a weak signal mode. Most 2m EME users run JT modes at full legal limit.

Quote
Must allow for verbose communication (Unlike JT65).

Must be good for 40M, and perhaps 20M bands

I'm assuming the majority of people will recommend CW, which is fine. If that's the best option.

thanks in advance.
 

PSK-31 might be worth looking at.
Logged
W4KYR
Member

Posts: 1803




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: May 13, 2015, 10:54:59 AM »

Some use CW with just attic antennas and get good results. Others use PSK31 regularly while others suggest Olivia.
http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php/topic,10297.msg414714.html#msg414714
Logged

The internet and cellphone networks are great until they go down, what then? Find out here. 
https://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php/topic,111948.0.html

Using Windows 98 For Packet...
AG6WT
Member

Posts: 510




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: May 13, 2015, 01:12:35 PM »

You might look at this study comparing the various digital modes, focusing on which might be best for rag chewing under difficult HF conditions

http://wz7i.com/digital-modes.html
Logged
WALTERB
Member

Posts: 550




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: May 13, 2015, 05:57:39 PM »

You might look at this study comparing the various digital modes, focusing on which might be best for rag chewing under difficult HF conditions

http://wz7i.com/digital-modes.html

Thanks. For my needs, I might end up using CW, as a protocol, at least for the first attempt.  I guess I can change later if I want.

thanks to all for the help!
Logged
G4AON
Member

Posts: 1426




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: May 21, 2015, 11:54:23 AM »

I've used Olivia for ragchewing and find the speed and low error rate excellent. Programs such as Fldigi are free and include plenty of modes to try.

The ideal would be Pactor 2 or higher, I've had QSOs where stations have tried deliberate jamming with RTTY, it made no difference at all... The band was 80m and the other station was using a mobile whip. We were running 25 Watts, he was in Germany, I was at home in the UK.

73 Dave
Logged
WALTERB
Member

Posts: 550




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: May 21, 2015, 11:58:02 AM »

I've used Olivia for ragchewing and find the speed and low error rate excellent. Programs such as Fldigi are free and include plenty of modes to try.

The ideal would be Pactor 2 or higher, I've had QSOs where stations have tried deliberate jamming with RTTY, it made no difference at all... The band was 80m and the other station was using a mobile whip. We were running 25 Watts, he was in Germany, I was at home in the UK.

73 Dave

thanks!
Logged
VA7CPC
Member

Posts: 2831




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: May 21, 2015, 10:19:12 PM »

Do you need error-free transmission?   Or is a "conversational mode" like PSK31 or Olivia (which is _not_ error-free) OK?   It sounds like you have a specific project in mind, and it would be helpful to know what it is.

IMHO, PSK31 (which isn't error-free) has a good balance of:

. . . narrow bandwidth;

. . . weak-signal readability;

. . . transmission speed.

I can type just a bit faster than PSK31 can transmit; it's comfortable for me.  A great ragchew mode.

I've tried Olivia, and I found it frustrating.  I can type _way_ faster than most Olivia modes can transmit.  But for doing weak-signal communications, it is better than PSK31, and (IMHO) better than CW as well. 

.    Charles
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 13268




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: May 22, 2015, 05:46:56 AM »

Forget PSK 31 as it has no error control. You want to try Domino EX. It has error control.  Select a lower speed for tough conditions. Also another oldie but goodie is MFSK 16 which also has error control/correction and MFSK 8 which is even more robust but slower. Pactor is rarely used today but it works well in very poor conditions. MultiPSK software supports all these modes and more (it will not do Pactor with a signal link adapter due to limitations of signal link).
Logged

--------------------------------------
Ham since 1969....  Old School 20wpm REAL Extra Class..
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!