Is KAM XL Best TNC for $400-$500?
John
I'm ready to plunk down some coin on an awesome TNC. I was really
close to buying an SCS PTC-II, but $1000 is just a little steep for
me.
I am having a hard time deciding between the popular TNCs. I think the
KAM XL looks like the best HF/VHF/UHF model around. At $380 it's
cheaper than the KAM '98. Why is that? It seems like the XL does more.
Should I be considering the Timewave or MFJ products.
I know the standard question is: What do you want to do? Well I want
to be *able* to do anything so I don't mind spending good money to get
a good box.
Thanks for your advice! I really do appreciate it.
John
Ralph Mowery
programs to do what the KAM will do but many of them are free.
Ken
wrote:
>Have you looked into the sound card programs ? It might take several
>programs to do what the KAM will do but many of them are free.
The sound card programs are not generally competent to TX packet due
to timing problems under Windows..
Ken KC2JDY
Ken
(to reply via email
remove "zz" from address)
S. Miller
Hi John,
The SCS PTC-IIe is $650 and has the same over-the-air performance of the
Pro. If you are willing to spend $400-$500 then you should definitely
spring for the extra dollars if you possibly can and go for the SCS unit.
If you have any interest at all in HF data communications then the
performance difference between Pactor I and Pactor II/III is night and day.
The PTC-IIe can also do HF/VHF packet but if packet is your primary
interest then the KAM implementation is much more fully featured then the
SCS (i.e. has APRS features, etc.).
So, the standard 'what do you want to do' question really does apply... if
your interest is primarily HF data then there is no question but to go for
the SCS unit if you can. If you are really into the packet/APRS scene then
you might want a more fully-featured packet TNC, but even then I would
suggest getting the SCS unit and then just picking up an old $50 TNC off of
the swap group for APRS. Just one opinion.
- Seth
charlesb
soundcard use, will give you the best combination of high performance and
choice of operating modes.
I will admit though, that doing so would put you over budget.
If you have no prospect of obtaining any more cash and 500 bucks is as high
as you can go, the Timewave PK-232 is a better bet than the KAM.
This is just a personal opinion. Your mileage may vary.
Charles, N5PVL
John
HF packet really is really my primary interest. Pactor I would be
nice, but since I'll only be able to talk to other people with SCS
boxes with Pactor II I don't think I'll find it that useful.
I guess I'm wondering of the Kam XL, Kam 98, Timewave, or MFJ which is
the best TNC.
The Kam XL can do 9600 Packet. Is that allowed on HF?
Do people do APRS on HF or is it only VHF/UHF?
I think the soundcard stuff is neat, but in my experience it's been
too much hassle and too error prone to let me really enjoy the digital
modes. I've got an HP Omnibook 6000 laptop that I use for all ham
radio stuff. It's internal sound card is pretty crappy and there is
lots of noise in general inside the laptop. I'd prefer to use it only
to control modems, not to be a modem itself. Is that reasonable?
Thanks for the advice!
John
"S. Miller" <stemp-re...@gstarusa.com> wrote in message news:<3D7876E...@gstarusa.com>...
John
> If you have no prospect of obtaining any more cash and 500 bucks is as high
> as you can go, the Timewave PK-232 is a better bet than the KAM.
What do you like about the Timewave that makes it better than the KAM
XL, KAM '98, and MFJ modems?
Thanks,
John
charlesb
"John" <johnf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d89364bd.02090...@posting.google.com...
In an earlier post, you mentioned only being interested in HF packet. For
that, the KAM and PK-232 are both "overkill", needlessly expensive.
MFJ 1270c packet TNC costs around 125 bucks, will do 300 baud packet, which
is what is legal for that mode on HF. You can usually find one used, of
course, for much less. Check out E-bay, see if there's one there.
The reason that the PACTOR II and PACTOR III is mentioned, is that the
throughput is MANY times higher than can be obtained with 300 baud packet. -
You can do more with it, faster. Also, because of its slowness, HF packet is
falling out of use. There are still stations out there, but not nearly as
many as in former times.
To get back to your question, I like the PK-232 better because I have known
hams who had reliability problems with KAMS, but have not heard so many
stories about PK-232's. (There's always SOMEBODY who has a problem, of
course, with anything.) One ham I know had a defunct KAM that took over 18
months of hassling back and forth with Kantronics to get it functioning
again.
The PK-232 also has an automatic signal indentification mode that I found to
be very interesting, as it allowed me to "listen in" on commercial, (some)
government, and news service transmissions in various digital modes that
other controllers do not copy. If you are not interested in this sort of
thing though, the feature would be a moot point.
Another feature that you may not care about is the PJK-232's ability to do
the soundcard "thing". You have said that soundcard stuff does not interest
you, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.
Charles, N5PVL
S. Miller
OK, that clarifies things a little. If you don't need (relatively) high-speed file transfer over HF
then you probably don't need one of the SCS units. The other raison d'être for Pactor II/III is HF
email, but sounds like that isn't your primary interest either.
No 9600 baud packet on HF for both technical and regulatory reasons... and you will soon be finding out
that even 300 baud doesn't work very well. There is some APRS activity on 300 baud packet though.
Besides APRS, if you want to talk to other hams using an HF digital mode and will only be doing
keyboard-to-keyboard chat stuff then you are really better off with one of the many soundcard modes
(PSK31, MFSK, Hell, etc.). There are some advantages to a stand-alone TNC but from your description of
your interests and your newbie status (no offense intended) I would advise holding off on investing a
lot of money in a TNC until you experiment with the free soundcard modes... I think that you will find
that they work very well (including the packet implementations). You can always buy a TNC later once
you find out what you really want/need.
Whatever you do, have fun!
- Seth
Dana H. Myers
There was, at one time, a moderate bit of
activity on 10m 1200baud packet, mostly around
28.195 USB. Haven't looked in years, though.
It was, like 10m, sporadic at best but could be
pretty cool when conditions were together. There
were a couple of Net/Rom nodes near 28.195 that I
could often hit. This was 10 years ago, though.
Dana K6JQ
da...@dioxine.net
Rob
If HF Packet is your primary interest then I would recommend that you go
with one of the KAM's (i.e. a KAM, KAM XL, KAM Plus or KAM 98).
You can pick up a KAM off Ebay for less than $100 US. A Kam Plus usually
goes for $150 to $200 US. If you want a deal, try to get a KAM with an
enhancement board and firmware version 8.0E or higher. There is not much
difference between a KAM (with an enhancement board) and a KAM Plus other
than the ability to add more RAM for the mailbox in the KAM Plus. I have
seem Kams with an enhancement board sell on Ebay for less than $100 US.
I can't comment on the performance of a KAM XL with its DSP since I have
never used one. It is possible that with its DSP, the KAM XL may outperform
the KAM, KAM Plus or KAM98 on HF Packet.
I think you will find that most of the HF packet stations operating on
14.105 (or Network105) use Kams. The Kantronics modems generally have more
features/options than the AEA/Timewave modems for packet operation.
But please note that in my experience the old KAM or KAM Plus do NOT perform
nearly as well as a PK-232 or Pk-900 on Pactor 1. (I suspect that
Kantronics did NOT do a great job when implementing the Pactor protocol in
the KAM, KAM Plus and KAM98).
If you are going to operate a lot of Pactor 1, I suggest you pick up a
second hand PK-232 or Pk-900 instead. (With its HARDWARE memory ARQ system,
the PK-900 is much better than the PK-232 (or the KAM) on Pactor or Amtor in
my opinion. The PK-900 also gives you two ports that operate simultaneously
like the Kam, Kam plus etc)
But if you would like to experience a great HF error free mode that is VERY
FAST, save up and get a PTC-IIe or a PTC-II. You have to see it to believe
it!
Rob
"John" <johnf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d89364bd.02090...@posting.google.com...
John
> that, the KAM and PK-232 are both "overkill", needlessly expensive.
I must have mis-stated myself. I am primarily interested in HF, but I
would also like to be able to do VHF/UHF in the same box (assuming
that's a reasonable request).
> MFJ 1270c packet TNC costs around 125 bucks, will do 300 baud packet, which
> is what is legal for that mode on HF. You can usually find one used, of
> course, for much less. Check out E-bay, see if there's one there.
I know it might sound stupid, but I'm really not trying to save money.
I've been frustrated with digital modes in the past and I think the
problem was that I tried to save money by putting together a hokey
setup. This time around I want to spend some good money (even if it's
on features I'm not likily to use right away) so that I won't be
constrained by hardware in the near future.
> The reason that the PACTOR II and PACTOR III is mentioned, is that the
> throughput is MANY times higher than can be obtained with 300 baud packet. -
> You can do more with it, faster. Also, because of its slowness, HF packet is
> falling out of use. There are still stations out there, but not nearly as
> many as in former times.
Maybe I should give more consideration to the SCS box. I'll think
about it some more.
> To get back to your question, I like the PK-232 better because I have known
> hams who had reliability problems with KAMS, but have not heard so many
> stories about PK-232's. (There's always SOMEBODY who has a problem, of
> course, with anything.) One ham I know had a defunct KAM that took over 18
> months of hassling back and forth with Kantronics to get it functioning
> again.
Good to know. Thanks.
> The PK-232 also has an automatic signal indentification mode that I found to
> be very interesting, as it allowed me to "listen in" on commercial, (some)
> government, and news service transmissions in various digital modes that
> other controllers do not copy. If you are not interested in this sort of
> thing though, the feature would be a moot point.
This is VERY interesting to me. Is the PK-232 the only box with this
sort of capability? I very much look forward to trying to figure out
what signals I hear in HF -- amateur and non-amateur. I want to
understand what all the warbles are.
> Another feature that you may not care about is the PJK-232's ability to do
> the soundcard "thing". You have said that soundcard stuff does not interest
> you, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.
Like I said above, even though I'm not interested in soundcard stuff
now, if I can buy one modem instead of another and get this feature
then I want this feature. That way if I change my mind later I won't
be constrained by the hardware.
I really do appreciate all your help!
John
Dave Allen
long for HF bands and conditions. Do something DESIGNED for HF - pactor, amtor, etc. You are, after all,
shopping for a tnc that WILL do those modes. I get better (or at least as good) throughput with pactor I
on HF than with 1200 baud packet on 2m, with a clear freq on 2m!
I have both a kam+ and pk232mbx. I like the automatic 2-port feature of the kam+ (you can hook up, and
operate hf or vhf without switching anything, and both have access to your pbbs while unattended). It's
also much smaller. Haven't been able to tell much difference in performance.
You asked about doing 9600 baud on HF. No, of course. And keep in mind that you can only do 1200 baud
packet on 10m. Below that, it's 300 baud. Pactor is the clear choice.
And if you were interested in the winlink (24-hr automated) HF bbs's, they are almost all pactor. And if
you're not going to be moving huge amounts of data, pactor I is plenty. I move a fair amount of data
(24-hour MBO (mailbox operation)) and pactor I is fine. For more on this, http://www.winlink.org or
http://wb0taq-twn.home.att.net
73, dave, wb0taq
Dana H. Myers
Dave Allen wrote:
> PLEASE! do us all a favor (and yourself) and don't even think about packet on HF. The packets are too
> long for HF bands and conditions.
Well, one can always reduce the MTU/maxframe parameter...
> Do something DESIGNED for HF - pactor, amtor, etc
Strikes me as sound advice, though.
Dana K6JQ
da...@dioxine.net
John
Farallon Electronics is the US distributor, but it doesn't seem like
they offer a discount. Can I get a discount elsewhere?
SCS PTC-IIe $649.00
TRX audio cable for ICOM 8 pin DIN $42.00
Y-cable $29.00
XPWare Software $80.00
Total $800.00
Thanks,
John
johnf...@hotmail.com (John) wrote in message news:<d89364bd.02090...@posting.google.com>...