Some of it is due to no education about QPSK other reason could be due to hams resist change in general, it hard to know the difference by the sound and look (which I can hear the difference and see the difference), BPSK31 is usually the default mode, Not a huge difference in actually performance due to phase noise, QPSK is side band dependent some people on BPSK might be in LSB or USB.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Another side note I think QPSK modulation technique is a little more behaved compared to BPSK (meaning not as wide banded like BPSK can be maybe that is due to the energy being spread out more in the phases instead of just two phases which there is slight penalty compared to BPSK, but the soft decision brings it back up near BPSK levels for sensitivity)
--- In 070@..., David Westbrook wrote:
If the rate is the same, and QPSK provides FEC (forward error correctrion)
for robust decodes, why isn't it used more?
Is is because of the latency? (from wiki) "To successfully decode an
input bit requires a large number of phase shift sequences to be received,
causing a 20 bit, 640 millisecond latency (delay) in the output of the
Or because we just d_n't r_a_ly n__d 10_% cp_ to un_ers__d th_ m___age?
Or other (historical/etc) reasons?
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:00 AM, melachri wrote:
===> I'm looking for someone more knowledgeable than me about the innerI didn't check your lookup table, but the 00 delimiter and 32 ms per bit
workings of the BPSK31 mode to verify the calculations...
I based it one the varicode length (from Wikipedia) plus '00' between
characters, and 32ms per bit.
parameters are correct.
And FWIW, it's the same for QPSK31. Although QPSK encodes two bits per
modulation symbol, the rate-1/2 convolutional code exactly compensates,
making the character rate identical.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]