[aprssig] Dirty signals vs. hardware TNCs

[david vanhorn]

"do we use hardware TNCs that will reject their signals as QRM and keep
them from propagating?"

You do know that the digi does not copy the distortion, right?  It creates
a new packet and the quality is the same as any other packet it puts out.

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:07 PM, John Langner via aprssig <aprssig at tapr.org>
wrote:

>
>
> Suggested reading on the subject.
>
>
> Sometimes it's a little mystifying why an APRS / AX.25 Packet TNC will
> decode some signals and not others. A weak signal, buried in static, might
> be fine while a nice strong clean sounding signal is not decoded. Here we
> will take a brief look at what could cause this perplexing situation and a
> couple things that can be done about it.
>
>
> https://github.com/wb2osz/direwolf/raw/master/doc/A-Better-APRS-Packet-Demodulator-Part-1-1200-baud.pdf
>
>
>
> Here, we take a closer look at some of the frames on the TNC Test CD in
> hopes of gaining some insights into why some are easily decoded and others
> are more difficult. There are a lot of ugly signals out there. Many can be
> improved by decreasing the transmit volume. Others are just plain weird and
> you have to wonder how they are being generated.
>
>
> https://github.com/wb2osz/direwolf/raw/master/doc/A-Closer-Look-at-the-WA8LMF-TNC-Test-CD.pdf
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at tapr.org
> http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
>



-- 
K1FZY (WA4TPW) SK  9/29/37-4/13/15
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.tapr.org/pipermail/aprssig_lists.tapr.org/attachments/20160511/dec71f06/attachment.html>