it takes some doing, but you can do PSK31, digital can be worked with to
work, and that's an accessible PSK31 program that is self voicing, problem
is, the voice goes out on the air though I have played with a few things and
made it useable. Also, the one for sighted people, digipan, you can work
with that one, I've done it. the problem is, you need 2 sound cards. I have
an external sound card on my radio desk computer, used to have the echolink
link interface plugged in to it but I guess since that's down for now, I
might use it for the digital modes for a bit. It is doable. Pactor and stuff
like that you can do, I haven't tried them all but I think we can pretty
much do any of them. Probably not the TV modes but so far, anything else
seems possible. I'll play with it over the winter and fill people in as I
work with things. I'm single this winter so have all that time I was with my
gf last year, to play radio. She had every second last winter.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: New Frequencies
> Speaking of PSK31, or any digital mode like that, is most o of the
> software
> for that accessible? Like will screenreaders be able to read what is on
> the
> screen?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: For blind ham radio operators [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Colin McDonald
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 19:39
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: New Frequencies
>
> I guess that makes me a chicken bander.
> I never new until now.
> That attitude is what is making ham radio an antiquated, excentric
> non-progressive hobby in many places.
> Who wants to learn to communicate using a bunch of short and long beeps
> when
> you can talk, or use digital modes using computers.
> Learning CW has to be the most awcward thing imaginable at first. Until
> you
> become really good at it, its slow, tedious and takes much more time to
> convey a thought then simply speaking it or sending it via pSK31 or other
> digital modes.
> And the idea that CW is the one and only method of communication that can
> get through when nothing else can is also a very outdated theory.
> Any digital mode will accomplish the same task, and offen with much lower
> error rate then a typical CW operater who is attempting to pull a signal
> out
> of the noise, or below the noise floor.
> Using PSK31, you offten can't even hear the signal, but the computer can
> and
> puts it out to the screen as text.
> So the idea that not learning some antiquated form of communicated just
> for
> the sake of doing so, and therefore getting a free ride because you didn't
> have to learn it is a very narow minded and outdated point of view.
>
> Now, all that said, i think CW is a very important aspect of amateur radio
> below 30MHZ and that it certainly has its place and usage. I don't
> begrudge
> anyone their decision to use any mode of communication on any amateur
> frequency.
> However, i really don't believe anyone mode should be chosen over all the
> rest as one that a person must have near to absolute perficiency in in
> order to communicate below 30MHZ.
>
> Naturally, the arguement that CW transmitters and receivers are some of
> the
> simplest and easy to setup and operate when compared to voice or digital
> stations always comes up. It comes up in the context of emergency
> measures
> or emergency communications.
> If that arguement is made, then the argument must also be made to include
> vastly more emergency training aspects to the general class or extra class
> licensing examinations.
> If you are going to force someone to learn CW because there just might be
> a
> once in a life time situation where they absolutely must use it, then it
> should also be required for those same individuals to learn vast amounts
> of
> procedural knoledge regarding emergency communications and procedures.
>
> Its a great mode, but its not the most important anymore.
>
> 73
> Colin, V A6BKX
>
|
