| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 15.04.16 15:06l 929 Lines 30226 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB11122
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V11 122
Path: IW8PGT<IZ3LSV<IW0QNL<JH4XSY<JE7YGF<7M3TJZ<CX2SA
Sent: 160415/1258Z @:CX2SA.SAL.URY.SOAM #:42234 [Salto] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB11122
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.SAL.URY.SOAM
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Mounting Arrow Antennas (John Brier)
2. Re: Mounting Arrow Antennas (Lou Michaels)
3. Re: Mounting Arrow Antennas (J. Boyd (JR2TTS))
4. Flex 5000a FM tone issues (Jeff)
5. Re: Flex 5000a FM tone issues (Alan)
6. ISS SSTV Received (Alfred Watts)
7. Re: Carrier on 145.8 NORCAL (Douglas Tabor)
8. Re: Carrier on 145.8 NORCAL (Jerry Buxton)
9. Re: Flex 5000a FM tone issues (Alan)
10. Re: Mounting Arrow Antennas (Oliver Krystal)
11. Re: Flex 5000a FM tone issues (Jeff)
12. Re: Flex 5000a FM tone issues (Alan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 15:26:04 -0400
From: John Brier <johnbrier@xxxxx.xxx>
To: Norm n3ykf <normanlizeth@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: AMSAT BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Mounting Arrow Antennas
Message-ID:
<CALn0fKPJR-MAGmrTuHWpUTRAj=wh0HDBdqMeizrZ=kkm09yuTg@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
The reason most people moUnt on the end of an arrow antenna is probably
because there is a threaded screw hole at the end made for camera tripods.
There isn't one in the middle.
Fwiw, some people don't use mounts like me.
On the AMSAT NA Facebook group someone said neither armstrong or mount is
better than the other, it depends on what suits the user.
I thought that was well said and agree.
73, John KG4AKV
On Apr 14, 2016 3:15 PM, "Norm n3ykf" <normanlizeth@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> Lance,
>
> Use both Arrow and Elk portable.
>
> Mounting details in the comments.
>
> Pics here: https://www.flickr.com/gp/n3ykf/7h5sA5
>
> Norm n3ykf
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:56 AM, Lance Homer <k7lqh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> wrote:
> > I'm an amateur radio operator who is thinking about getting into
> > communicating via satellites. As I've been looking into the Elk vs the
> > Arrow antennas and trying to decide which to buy....all of the videos and
> > the pictures I see of the Arrow on a a tripod always have it mounted on
> the
> > far end at the handle. Many use a counterweight but some do not. I was
> > wondering if mounting in the middle of the beam where it is more balanced
> > weight-wise is possible or if there is some reason people do not do this?
> > (As I try to imagine the motion needed it still seems possible to me to
> > have the elements not hit the tripod legs if you can extend the head of
> the
> > tripod up a bit.) If it can be done I assume it would need to be a
> > non-metal tri-pod?? I'm also thinking of mounting the antenna I choose
> > (Elk or Arrow) to a tall fiberglass mast. If I can't mount the arrow in
> > the middle then I would worry about the leverage that it would create
> > which is one reason the Elk seems appealing....but at the same time I
> > assume the Alaskan has the most gain which interests me for non-satellite
> > uses.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Lance / K7LQH
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
> > to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership.
> Opinions expressed
> > are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
> AMSAT-NA.
> > Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
> program!
> > Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions
> expressed
> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
> AMSAT-NA.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 15:39:19 -0400
From: Lou Michaels <w2lmm.qsl@xxxxx.xxx>
To: Lance Homer <k7lqh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Mounting Arrow Antennas
Message-ID:
<CAAYRh5c5uDY=1R374_R=S62vCMKBKakQkOYq8MGQLbr6TTt4BQ@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Arrow sells a mounting bracket for the square boom. It's $14 and is well
made. I picked one up for ground testing my rotor setup before I put
everything on the roof.
http://www.arrowantennas.com/main/mbii.html
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:56 AM, Lance Homer <k7lqh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
wrote:
> I'm an amateur radio operator who is thinking about getting into
> communicating via satellites. As I've been looking into the Elk vs the
> Arrow antennas and trying to decide which to buy....all of the videos and
> the pictures I see of the Arrow on a a tripod always have it mounted on the
> far end at the handle. Many use a counterweight but some do not. I was
> wondering if mounting in the middle of the beam where it is more balanced
> weight-wise is possible or if there is some reason people do not do this?
> (As I try to imagine the motion needed it still seems possible to me to
> have the elements not hit the tripod legs if you can extend the head of the
> tripod up a bit.) If it can be done I assume it would need to be a
> non-metal tri-pod?? I'm also thinking of mounting the antenna I choose
> (Elk or Arrow) to a tall fiberglass mast. If I can't mount the arrow in
> the middle then I would worry about the leverage that it would create
> which is one reason the Elk seems appealing....but at the same time I
> assume the Alaskan has the most gain which interests me for non-satellite
> uses.
>
> Thanks,
> Lance / K7LQH
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions
> expressed
> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
> AMSAT-NA.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 07:32:08 +0900
From: "J. Boyd (JR2TTS)" <the2belo@xxx.xxxxxxx.xx.xx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Mounting Arrow Antennas
Message-ID: <20160415073016.8ACB.THE2BELO@xxx.xxxxxxx.xx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 15:15:40 -0400, Norm n3ykf <normanlizeth@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> Lance,
>
> Use both Arrow and Elk portable.
>
> Mounting details in the comments.
>
> Pics here: https://www.flickr.com/gp/n3ykf/7h5sA5
I made a thing out of PVC pipe joints that fit perfectly over my Alaskan
Arrow. It allows me to twist the antenna in roll to adjust for
polarization.
http://i.imgur.com/OynjGJw.jpg
--
J. Boyd, JR2TTS/NI3B
the2belo@xxx.xxxxxxx.xx.xx
http://www.flickr.com/photos/the2belo/
http://www.qrz.com/db/JR2TTS
Twitter: @xxxxxxxx
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 18:52:19 -0400
From: "Jeff" <kb2m@xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Amsat" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Flex 5000a FM tone issues
Message-ID: <80413946CCAF4D32A7E4C282B332D0FA@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I?m working my way through setting up my Flex 5000 for satellites. I?m very
happy with the performance on the linear bird?s , but having some issues
with AO-85, and SO-50. After getting some bad audio reports on SO-50
yesterday I tried to work the problem out with someone on a local repeater
who was familiar with my voice. After a few minutes it became very clear
that it was a CTCSS tone issue as simplex performance was excellent. I
thought about this a minute and came to the realization that there might be
a TX filter in play, and discovered, yes it was set to a default of 150 to
2700. Obliviously not FM values. So just before the last pass of AO-85 I
quickly built an FM RPTR filter of 50 to 4k and saved it. It worked a bit
better on the pass but I still had obvious issues. Anyone have any ideas
what the issue might be? I?m thinking a tone level issue, but after goggling
I found issues with CTCSS was too HIGH of a level. Any suggestions welcome...
73 Jeff kb2m
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 18:37:10 -0500
From: Alan <wa4sca@xxxxx.xxx>
To: "'Jeff'" <kb2m@xxxx.xxx>, "'Amsat'" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Flex 5000a FM tone issues
Message-ID: <000001d196a6$90d4fcb0$b27ef610$@xxxxx.xxx>
Jeff,
While not normally recommended, as a test try working SO-50 in half duplex
rather than full duplex and
see what happens. There is a very peculiar buffer issue which can cause
bad audio in full duplex. If
that is it, there is a work around.
Question about your comment about building an FM repeater filter. Are you
referring to the Transmit
tab, Transmit Filter?
73s,
Alan
WA4SCA
<-----Original Message-----
<From: AMSAT-BB [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On Behalf Of Jeff
<Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 5:52 PM
<To: Amsat <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
<Subject: [amsat-bb] Flex 5000a FM tone issues
<
<I?m working my way through setting up my Flex 5000 for satellites. I?m very
happy with the
<performance on the linear bird?s , but having some issues with AO-85, and
SO-50. After getting some
<bad audio reports on SO-50 yesterday I tried to work the problem out with
someone on a local repeater
<who was familiar with my voice. After a few minutes it became very clear
that it was a CTCSS tone
<issue as simplex performance was excellent. I thought about this a minute
and came to the realization
<that there might be a TX filter in play, and discovered, yes it was set to
a default of 150 to 2700.
<Obliviously not FM values. So just before the last pass of AO-85 I quickly
built an FM RPTR filter of
<50 to 4k and saved it. It worked a bit better on the pass but I still had
obvious issues. Anyone have
any
<ideas what the issue might be? I?m thinking a tone level issue, but after
goggling I found issues with
<CTCSS was too HIGH of a level. Any suggestions welcome...
<
<73 Jeff kb2m
<
<
<_______________________________________________
<Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
<to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions
expressed
<are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
AMSAT-NA.
<Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
<Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 17:56:56 -0600
From: "Alfred Watts" <awatts44@xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] ISS SSTV Received
Message-ID: <001601d196a9$53deba00$fb9c2e00$@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Captured attached ISS SSTV image 4/13/16 on 22:13 UTC pass (17.9 deg) from
Albuquerque (DM65rd).
Captured using MSSTV Engine (sstveng ver 1.06) running in HRD / DM780 ver.
6.3.0.448
SATPC32 ver 12.8b for Doppler control (probably not needed - AFC worked
well)
Windows 10
Radio: IC-9100
SignaLink USB
MFJ 2 m / 70 cm vertical antenna at 6 ft.
The signal was very strong except for several static bursts near the
middle.
The ISS xmitter came on early in the pass, transmitted one image and went
off
Al
AF5VH
Alfred C. Watts
e-mail: awatts44@xxxxxxx.xxx <mailto:awatts44@xxxxxxx.xxx>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 19:45:56 -0600
From: Douglas Tabor <dtabor@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Carrier on 145.8 NORCAL
Message-ID: <1C0EA2A7-9189-46CA-9844-24F8E4320C24@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
One of the ?offenders? in my area of ?expensive last mile internet?
is PoE where local ISPs may be using indoor grade UTP between their
radio internet transceivers and the point of power injections.
UTP acts like an antenna and power from dirty imported wall worts
(switching power supplies) is very dirty (spectrally speaking.)
Had my ISP replace my UTP with STP and problem went away. However, when
dealing with weak signals, the noise can be blocks/miles away and
pretty broad spectrum.
Doug, N6UA
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 00:48:23 -0500
From: Jerry Buxton <n0jy@xxxxx.xxx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Carrier on 145.8 NORCAL
Message-ID: <571080A7.3050508@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
This thread prompted me to take a look at some interference I had on
145.800. It turned out to be 145 810 or so, after I tracked it down.
And it was coming from an IP camera I have in the attic that I used to
watch my satellite antennas. The wireless was off, it was on a cable,
but it still put out all sorts of garbage on 2 meters. Just a thought,
maybe the problem is closer to home than you think!
Jerry Buxton, N?JY
On 4/13/2016 20:59, Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK) wrote:
> Paul,
>
> If the cable TV system in your area still uses analog channels, the
> 2m band falls around cable channel 18 (144-150 MHz). That used to
> be a problem for me in the past, if there was degraded coax cable
> connecting houses to the cable TV system in the neighborhood. If
> I transmitted on much of 2m, I would interfere with that cable channel.
> And I could hear the audio carrier from that channel on my 2m radios.
> If this is the case, you might hear the audio from that analog cable
> channel on 149.750 MHz.
>
> Thankfully, my current neighborhood doesn't suffer from having some
> old or compromised cable in the ground between the houses and street
> (all cable TV and telephone infrastructure is underground around here).
> And no TVI complaints from the neighbors, when on HF or VHF/UHF. :-)
>
> 73!
>
>
>
>
>
> Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
> http://www.wd9ewk.net/
> Twitter: @xxxxxx
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:39 AM, Paul Stoetzer <n8hm@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>> There's a lot of junk on 145.800 MHz here in DC. My router or cable modem
>> seems to put out a strong carrier there. Other signals appear there around
>> my apartment building too (there are certain interference free areas I can
>> go). The church across the street also appears to have some wireless mic
>> system there.
>>
>> Trying to listen to the ISS or work XW-2C is always interesting with all
>> these signals near that frequency.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Paul, N8HM
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions
expressed
> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
AMSAT-NA.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 05:28:14 -0500
From: Alan <wa4sca@xxxxx.xxx>
To: "AMSAT-BB" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Flex 5000a FM tone issues
Message-ID: <000201d19701$85343e10$8f9cba30$@xxxxx.xxx>
Jeff,
Some people have no problems with full duplex FM. However, others have.
There are a couple of
factors to tweak.
First, cut the primary sample rate back to 96k if you are running 192k.
Second, make certain that all the voice buffer sizes are the same. This
means on the primary audio
tab, and also Buffer Size|Phone on the DSP tab. Try 2048, and if that
works, 1024. Probably 96k/2048
would be the place to start as it is most likely to solve the problem.
This is the result of trial and error by myself and others and not, on my
part, a deep understanding
of how PowerSDR works. Not everybody finds the same combination works, so
at least part of it
involves the computer (and OS version??) you are using. However, it is
completely reproducible once
you find the right combination.
Finally, are you using 435.170 Mhz (435.172 MHz has also been recommended)
for the uplink computer
tuning? If you are off frequency, the satellite AFC will help, but you can
still get a rough audio.
73s,
Alan
WA4SCA
<-----Original Message-----
<From: Jeff [mailto:jeff_griffin@xxxxxxx.xxxx
<Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 6:46 PM
<To: APBIDDLE@xxxxxxx.xxx
<Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Flex 5000a FM tone issues
<
<Yes, I will start F/D then go H/D if there is an issue. I really don't care
<about the FM birds anyway, so it's not a real issue. Tell me about the
<buffer issue work around?
<
<73 Jeff kb2m
<
<
<-----Original Message-----
<From: Alan
<Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 7:37 PM
<To: 'Jeff' ; 'Amsat'
<Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Flex 5000a FM tone issues
<
<Jeff,
<
<While not normally recommended, as a test try working SO-50 in half duplex
<rather than full duplex and
<see what happens. There is a very peculiar buffer issue which can cause
<bad audio in full duplex. If
<that is it, there is a work around.
<
<Question about your comment about building an FM repeater filter. Are you
<referring to the Transmit
<tab, Transmit Filter?
<
<73s,
<
<Alan
<WA4SCA
<
<
<
<<-----Original Message-----
<<From: AMSAT-BB [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On Behalf Of Jeff
<<Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 5:52 PM
<<To: Amsat <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
<<Subject: [amsat-bb] Flex 5000a FM tone issues
<<
<<I?m working my way through setting up my Flex 5000 for satellites. I?m very
<happy with the
<<performance on the linear bird?s , but having some issues with AO-85, and
<SO-50. After getting some
<<bad audio reports on SO-50 yesterday I tried to work the problem out with
<someone on a local repeater
<<who was familiar with my voice. After a few minutes it became very clear
<that it was a CTCSS tone
<<issue as simplex performance was excellent. I thought about this a minute
<and came to the realization
<<that there might be a TX filter in play, and discovered, yes it was set to
<a default of 150 to 2700.
<<Obliviously not FM values. So just before the last pass of AO-85 I quickly
<built an FM RPTR filter of
<<50 to 4k and saved it. It worked a bit better on the pass but I still had
<obvious issues. Anyone have
<any
<<ideas what the issue might be? I?m thinking a tone level issue, but after
<goggling I found issues with
<<CTCSS was too HIGH of a level. Any suggestions welcome...
<<
<<73 Jeff kb2m
<<
<<
<<_______________________________________________
<<Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
<<to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions
<expressed
<<are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
<AMSAT-NA.
<<Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
<<Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 02:13:47 -0500
From: Oliver Krystal <mr.soup12@xxxxx.xxx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Mounting Arrow Antennas
Message-ID: <571094AB.9080908@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Here is a blog post detailing my setup:
https://soliloquyforthefallen.net/?p=858
On 04/14/2016 05:32 PM, J. Boyd (JR2TTS) wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 15:15:40 -0400, Norm n3ykf <normanlizeth@xxxxx.xxx>
wrote:
>
>> Lance,
>>
>> Use both Arrow and Elk portable.
>>
>> Mounting details in the comments.
>>
>> Pics here: https://www.flickr.com/gp/n3ykf/7h5sA5
>
> I made a thing out of PVC pipe joints that fit perfectly over my Alaskan
> Arrow. It allows me to twist the antenna in roll to adjust for
> polarization.
>
> http://i.imgur.com/OynjGJw.jpg
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:31:45 -0400
From: "Jeff" <kb2m@xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <APBIDDLE@xxxxxxx.xxx>, "AMSAT-BB" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Flex 5000a FM tone issues
Message-ID: <78A33AE0F067482EB180FB54ED51A11B@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Ok, I was (after considerable effort) at 192k as I was told it works best
with FM, and I had also the Audio tab buffer at 1024, now all voice buffers
are at 2048, with a sample rate of 96k . I'm at 435172 and I also created a
doppler.sqf entry with 435170 to try if needed. Is my thinking about the
transmit profile correct? The TX filter I build seems to work a bit better
then the FM default filter.
Wife has plans for me for the day, I should be back in time for the 1709L
pass.
Alan, thanks for you input..
73 Jeff kb2m
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 6:28 AM
To: AMSAT-BB
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Flex 5000a FM tone issues
Jeff,
Some people have no problems with full duplex FM. However, others have.
There are a couple of
factors to tweak.
First, cut the primary sample rate back to 96k if you are running 192k.
Second, make certain that all the voice buffer sizes are the same. This
means on the primary audio
tab, and also Buffer Size|Phone on the DSP tab. Try 2048, and if that
works, 1024. Probably 96k/2048
would be the place to start as it is most likely to solve the problem.
This is the result of trial and error by myself and others and not, on my
part, a deep understanding
of how PowerSDR works. Not everybody finds the same combination works, so
at least part of it
involves the computer (and OS version??) you are using. However, it is
completely reproducible once
you find the right combination.
Finally, are you using 435.170 Mhz (435.172 MHz has also been recommended)
for the uplink computer
tuning? If you are off frequency, the satellite AFC will help, but you can
still get a rough audio.
73s,
Alan
WA4SCA
<-----Original Message-----
<From: Jeff [mailto:jeff_griffin@xxxxxxx.xxxx
<Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 6:46 PM
<To: APBIDDLE@xxxxxxx.xxx
<Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Flex 5000a FM tone issues
<
<Yes, I will start F/D then go H/D if there is an issue. I really don't care
<about the FM birds anyway, so it's not a real issue. Tell me about the
<buffer issue work around?
<
<73 Jeff kb2m
<
<
<-----Original Message-----
<From: Alan
<Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 7:37 PM
<To: 'Jeff' ; 'Amsat'
<Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Flex 5000a FM tone issues
<
<Jeff,
<
<While not normally recommended, as a test try working SO-50 in half duplex
<rather than full duplex and
<see what happens. There is a very peculiar buffer issue which can cause
<bad audio in full duplex. If
<that is it, there is a work around.
<
<Question about your comment about building an FM repeater filter. Are you
<referring to the Transmit
<tab, Transmit Filter?
<
<73s,
<
<Alan
<WA4SCA
<
<
<
<<-----Original Message-----
<<From: AMSAT-BB [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On Behalf Of Jeff
<<Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 5:52 PM
<<To: Amsat <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
<<Subject: [amsat-bb] Flex 5000a FM tone issues
<<
<<I?m working my way through setting up my Flex 5000 for satellites. I?m
very
<happy with the
<<performance on the linear bird?s , but having some issues with AO-85, and
<SO-50. After getting some
<<bad audio reports on SO-50 yesterday I tried to work the problem out with
<someone on a local repeater
<<who was familiar with my voice. After a few minutes it became very clear
<that it was a CTCSS tone
<<issue as simplex performance was excellent. I thought about this a minute
<and came to the realization
<<that there might be a TX filter in play, and discovered, yes it was set to
<a default of 150 to 2700.
<<Obliviously not FM values. So just before the last pass of AO-85 I quickly
<built an FM RPTR filter of
<<50 to 4k and saved it. It worked a bit better on the pass but I still had
<obvious issues. Anyone have
<any
<<ideas what the issue might be? I?m thinking a tone level issue, but after
<goggling I found issues with
<<CTCSS was too HIGH of a level. Any suggestions welcome...
<<
<<73 Jeff kb2m
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 07:50:39 -0500
From: Alan <wa4sca@xxxxx.xxx>
To: "'Jeff'" <kb2m@xxxx.xxx>, <APBIDDLE@xxxxxxx.xxx>, "'AMSAT-BB'"
<amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Flex 5000a FM tone issues
Message-ID: <000001d19715$6a41ce60$3ec56b20$@xxxxx.xxx>
Jeff,
Sounds good. The frustrating thing is that the advice to use 192k may well
have been good for the
person who recommended it. (It gets more interesting when you start with
digital modes.) Hopefully
there will be a combination which will work for you.
As for the TX filter, I don't know how much or any effect it has on FM. FM
was one of the last
features added, and many of the functions which are relevant to SSB or AM
are bypassed. If it does
effect FM, changing the low frequency cutoff should not effect the CTCSS
since that should be injected
independent of the voice audio.
No promises, and good luck!
73s,
Alan
WA4SCA
<-----Original Message-----
<From: AMSAT-BB [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On Behalf Of Jeff
<Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 7:32 AM
<To: APBIDDLE@xxxxxxx.xxxx AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
<Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Flex 5000a FM tone issues
<
< Ok, I was (after considerable effort) at 192k as I was told it works best
<with FM, and I had also the Audio tab buffer at 1024, now all voice buffers
<are at 2048, with a sample rate of 96k . I'm at 435172 and I also created a
<doppler.sqf entry with 435170 to try if needed. Is my thinking about the
<transmit profile correct? The TX filter I build seems to work a bit better
<then the FM default filter.
< Wife has plans for me for the day, I should be back in time for the 1709L
<pass.
<
<Alan, thanks for you input..
<
<73 Jeff kb2m
<
<-----Original Message-----
<From: Alan
<Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 6:28 AM
<To: AMSAT-BB
<Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Flex 5000a FM tone issues
<
<Jeff,
<
<Some people have no problems with full duplex FM. However, others have.
<There are a couple of
<factors to tweak.
<
<First, cut the primary sample rate back to 96k if you are running 192k.
<
<Second, make certain that all the voice buffer sizes are the same. This
<means on the primary audio
<tab, and also Buffer Size|Phone on the DSP tab. Try 2048, and if that
<works, 1024. Probably 96k/2048
<would be the place to start as it is most likely to solve the problem.
<
<This is the result of trial and error by myself and others and not, on my
<part, a deep understanding
<of how PowerSDR works. Not everybody finds the same combination works, so
<at least part of it
<involves the computer (and OS version??) you are using. However, it is
<completely reproducible once
<you find the right combination.
<
<Finally, are you using 435.170 Mhz (435.172 MHz has also been recommended)
<for the uplink computer
<tuning? If you are off frequency, the satellite AFC will help, but you can
<still get a rough audio.
<
<73s,
<
<Alan
<WA4SCA
<
<
<
<
<
<<-----Original Message-----
<<From: Jeff [mailto:jeff_griffin@xxxxxxx.xxxx
<<Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 6:46 PM
<<To: APBIDDLE@xxxxxxx.xxx
<<Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Flex 5000a FM tone issues
<<
<<Yes, I will start F/D then go H/D if there is an issue. I really don't care
<<about the FM birds anyway, so it's not a real issue. Tell me about the
<<buffer issue work around?
<<
<<73 Jeff kb2m
<<
<<
<<-----Original Message-----
<<From: Alan
<<Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 7:37 PM
<<To: 'Jeff' ; 'Amsat'
<<Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Flex 5000a FM tone issues
<<
<<Jeff,
<<
<<While not normally recommended, as a test try working SO-50 in half duplex
<<rather than full duplex and
<<see what happens. There is a very peculiar buffer issue which can cause
<<bad audio in full duplex. If
<<that is it, there is a work around.
<<
<<Question about your comment about building an FM repeater filter. Are you
<<referring to the Transmit
<<tab, Transmit Filter?
<<
<<73s,
<<
<<Alan
<<WA4SCA
<<
<<
<<
<<<-----Original Message-----
<<<From: AMSAT-BB [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On Behalf Of Jeff
<<<Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 5:52 PM
<<<To: Amsat <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
<<<Subject: [amsat-bb] Flex 5000a FM tone issues
<<<
<<<I?m working my way through setting up my Flex 5000 for satellites. I?m
<very
<<happy with the
<<<performance on the linear bird?s , but having some issues with AO-85, and
<<SO-50. After getting some
<<<bad audio reports on SO-50 yesterday I tried to work the problem out with
<<someone on a local repeater
<<<who was familiar with my voice. After a few minutes it became very clear
<<that it was a CTCSS tone
<<<issue as simplex performance was excellent. I thought about this a minute
<<and came to the realization
<<<that there might be a TX filter in play, and discovered, yes it was set to
<<a default of 150 to 2700.
<<<Obliviously not FM values. So just before the last pass of AO-85 I quickly
<<built an FM RPTR filter of
<<<50 to 4k and saved it. It worked a bit better on the pass but I still had
<<obvious issues. Anyone have
<<any
<<<ideas what the issue might be? I?m thinking a tone level issue, but after
<<goggling I found issues with
<<<CTCSS was too HIGH of a level. Any suggestions welcome...
<<<
<<<73 Jeff kb2m
<
<_______________________________________________
<Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
<to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions
expressed
<are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
AMSAT-NA.
<Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
<Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Sent via amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx.
AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide
without requiring membership. Opinions expressed
are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
AMSAT-NA.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
End of AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol 11, Issue 122
*****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
