Posted on 11/02/2017 7:27:50 PM PDT by markomalley
The wave of software-based digital modes over the past several years has altered the atmosphere of the HF bands. Some suggest the popularity of modes that make it possible to contact stations neither operator can even hear has resulted in fewer CW and SSB signals on bands like 6 meters and 160 meters. Traditional modes require far more interaction and effort on the part of the operator; the newer digital modes not so much. The recent advent of the still-beta “quick” FT8 mode, developed by Steve Franke, K9AN, and Joe Taylor, K1JT — the “F” and the “T” in the mode’s moniker — has brought this to a head. Some now wonder if FT8 marks the end of an era and the start of a new, more minimalist age.
“We’ve been as surprised as anyone about the rapid uptake of FT8 for making QSOs on the HF bands,” Taylor told ARRL this week. Rather than viewing FT8 as a total game-changer, he sees a dividing line between such digital modes and more traditional modes.
“SSB and CW are general-purpose modes,” Taylor asserted. “They are good for ragchewing, DXing, contesting, emergency communications, or whatever. FT8 and the other modes in WSJT-X are special-purpose modes. They are designed for making reliable, error-free contacts using very weak signals — in particular, signals that may be too weak for the more traditional modes to be usable, or even too weak to hear.”
Taylor notes that the information exchanged in most FT8, JT65, and other digital-mode contacts “is little more than the bare minimum for what’s considered to be a valid contact.” In addition to call signs and signal reports, stations may exchange grid squares and acknowledgments.
Radio amateurs recently commented in response to a Top Band Reflector post, in which Steve Ireland, VK6VZ, averred that because of FT8, “160-meter DXing has changed, perhaps forever” in recent weeks. Ireland said he downloaded FT8 but just couldn’t bring himself to use it on the air. “My heart isn’t in it,” he wrote. “My computer will be talking to someone else’s computer, and there will be no sense of either a particular person’s way of sending CW or the tone of their voice. The human in radio has somehow been lost.”
In his blog, Steve McDonald, VE7SL, compiled not only Ireland’s posts, but some responses to it, although not identified by name or call sign. One commenter suggested that the game-changing aspect of FT8 is that those who typically operate CW or SSB will gravitate to FT8. “The amount of activity on the FT8 frequency of any band is phenomenal,” the commenter observed. A few complained that no skill is involved in making contacts using computer-based digital modes.
Another suggested that FT8 is already falling victim to its own success, with too many stations crowding around the designated FT8 frequencies. Others were more philosophical, with remarks along the lines of this one: “It is allowing people who have smaller stations the opportunity to get on and use their radios and a computer to make contacts they never would have been able to make. This is great for ham radio!”
Taylor would agree. As he sees it, FT8 won’t replace modes such as CW or SSB. “Nevertheless, it’s clear that — at least in the short term — many hams enjoy making rapid-fire minimal QSOs with other hams, all over the world, using modest ham equipment,” he said. “For this purpose, FT8 shines.”
In a related “lightning talk” at the 2017 ARRL-TAPR Digital Communications Conference (DCC) earlier this year, ARRL Contributing Editor Ward Silver, N0AX, challenged his savvy audience to develop a keyboard-to-keyboard mode “between FT8 and PSK31” that would support casual and competitive operating, be more interference and noise tolerant, and be usable by those with “compromised” stations and antennas. He also challenged his listeners to develop a “smart” spectrum display that would identify signals by mode, so Amateur Radio could move away from the practice of setting aside specific frequencies for digital modes.
And, as far as utility is concerned, if a group of preparation-minded hams could develop a CEOI (communications-electronics operating instruction) for a private net, some very effective communications could be exchanged during a "disaster" at very, very low power with very, very stealthy equipment (low enough power where it would be extraordinarily difficult for fox-chasers to be able to catch them). If you catch my drift.
develop a CEOI (communications-electronics operating instruction) for a private net
= = =
If you can conceive it, it can (and will) be done.
Bookmark
Huh?? I operated 50+ years ago. This sounds like a RTTY operation highly souped up with computer detection and transmission. Hams used keyboards and hf 60 plus years ago. Am I close?
Miss my 20 and 40 cw dx and 160 am. A vertical and 50 watts. Really cooked when I moved up to ssb.
bump because I’m following what you’re saying, I’m just not going to tell anyone.
What’s it cost to get into that game?
bttt
Bkmrk.
My first RTTY demodulator was a twin cities tube affair.
Home brewed a number of AFSK modulators and demodulators.
My Fleisher TU-170 was an absolute jewel (sorry I ever sold it).
Still have a Robot keyboard. (CW, Badot & ASCI)
Not that active any more, but thinking about fixing that. Still have some fine gear.
I did a bit of homebrew QRP work. Really liked that.
It’s been around for a few years now. Digital mode, software defined radios or SDR’s etc..Most hams nowadays are tied into the Internet one way or another and digital is yet another amateur radio mode.
It’s been around for a few years now. Digital mode, software defined radios or SDR’s etc..Most hams nowadays are tied into the Internet one way or another and digital is yet another amateur radio mode.
Dogear page for later.
And another one :
I prefer the computer-based digital modes to HF voice; the background noise is terrible, my hearing is not good, I have tinnitus, and I just can't pull stations out of the noise. But Joe Taylor's software WSJT-X sure can.
For later.
Thanks.
L
The mathematical codes this new software uses for detection weren’t even invented 50 years ago. But yes, like RTTY, it uses FSK, but with 8 levels (FT8) or 65 levels (JT65) per symbol instead of just 2.
book mark
You can control your rig's frequency with WSJT-X, but I don't. There's only one center frequency for each mode for each band, so I just stored them in my old Kenwood rig's memories. I can push a button just as good as the PC can.
What equipment is required other than an HF rig and an antenna? Software from whom?
Thanks
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.