LF/MF mode with Synchronous Decoder A new version of WSQCall, a specially designed 'chat' mode for LF/MF has been released. The sensitivity rivals that of WSPR, yet it designed for free-form QSOs, and goes at 5.5 WPM. It requires no error correction, and includes optional selective calling and auto-replies. The main improvement in this new version is the addition of a clever synchronous decoder, which markedly improves intelligibility of really weak signals. http://www.qsl.net/zl1bpu/MFSK/WSQweb.htm Murray ZL1BPU http://www.southgatearc.org/news/2018/march/lf-mf-mode-with-synchronous-decoder.htm
I am curious why the creators of this intriguing new weak signal mode are aiming it only at LF/MF. It seems to have properties that would be useful throughout the entire spectrum. I have not yet tried using it however as described WSQCall has similar SNR specs and yet positive attributes that so many FT8 haters crave, ie, no PC timing to snyc and free-form keyboard texting (no fixed messages) which would allow a more casual "ragchew" QSO style, not just log filling, albeit at 5.5 WPM. (TANSTAAFL ) Perhaps the reason is to simply first carve out a LF/MF niche from the operational market now being dominated by the juggernaut FT8, which started as JTnn mostly for niche VHF applications. Or are the idiosyncrasies of HF propagation such as rapid QSB, AU flutter, etc, still a bit too challenging for a reliable WSQCall print? In any case its great to see such continued innovation, experimentation and development within amateur radio. 73, John, WØPV
I can see this sneaking into the HF bands. 160 meters were compromise antennas and low power is very common. (Not everyone can have a real antenna farm and legal limit). Then moving in 30 meter next as well as 40 meters... Maybe 60 meters. If this really is a weak signal program, which it sounds like. 160-maybe 10 meters will all find a place for it. Not sure about 17-10 will be used a lot, but then again you can fire up WSPR on a "dead" band and if you get hits, then fire WSQCall and get a sloooooow QSO. But hey 5 wpm was what I had to do for my novice license back in 1963/64, why not 5 wpm keyboard for people who are CW and keyboard challenged also.... This could get interesting... Now someone start posting calling freq. Once you do I will jump in ....
Very nice. A chat mode with the SNR performance of the JT modes, but with its own internal clock recovery: Modes such as WSQ and FSQ transmit phase continuous tones with no transmitted synchronising information, so symbol synchronism needs to be recovered from the data stream. The data is transmitted as incrementally coded FSK using 33 close-spaced tones. Too bad it's only for Windows... and apparently closed-source: Source code is available to serious developers. Please respect the copyright and ownership rights. It seems to be well-documented, though, so maybe somebody will reverse-engineer it for another OS at some point (or better yet, for a cross-platform code base).
The first link in Murray ZL1BPU's message contains an answer to FAQ #1, stating: "Please don't use WSQCall on HF. While it will work OK on 80 metres, there's no reason to use it when FSQCall is so much faster, has many more features, and was designed to work from 160 metres to 30 metres." For a no-sync, weak signal QSO mode for HF, FSQCall is already in place. http://www.qsl.net/zl1bpu/MFSK/FSQweb.htm 73 de Frode LA6VQ
Thanks Frode for pointing out FSQCall. This post is directed to all following this thread. In that link there is a comparison with WSPR, but I didn't see any directly to JT or FT modes. Perhaps that is in later documentation. Pondering why the FSQ / WSQ "conversational" weak sig modes have not been adopted more quickly by the general amateur radio digi crowd, versus the rampant mania for the JT / FT "log book filling" alternatives, which have become dominant now. FSQ has been around awhile, doesn't require an external sync requirement, and seems capable of passing at least the same amount of data per minute as FT8 under similar SNR conditions. And in free-form text. I'm guessing the answer is less due to technical reasons and more because of the irrational factors of human social behavior, and clever marketing. The general public, evermore stressed for multi-tasking time, now lusts simply for txt'ing and twitter of abbreviations and emoji's versus talking. So communication methods and modes within the amateur radio community have adapted to be likewise. Quantity trumps quality (pun? ;-) so just filling the log wins over the rag-chew. OR is it perhaps because of the undeniable and legit "star power" of the JT / FT mode creators and its origination in the USA, and/or their product quickly acquiring promotion and adoption by the AmericanRRL and its powerful media machine, and/or quite a bit of tribal NIH (not invented here) cultural bias across the huge potential user base market in the USA. Again, I have yet to try either of these "ZL modes" but in retrospect, it seems a shame that in comparison to FT8/JT65 there has been so much neglect of FSQCall/WSQCall. 73 de John WØPV
ft8 jt-65 saved hamming in these low solar index times. If you want zl modes to be successful copy the marketing strategy of ft-8, give people what they want. Theories on why jt65 & ft-8 are successful are a waste of time. While writing this reply I qso'd 6 ft-8's!
No "marketing" for any of the JT modes, it is all free and with full specs. I would prefer to use WSQCall or FSQCall on 10M for starters as Ive always been intrigued with its often "unknown" propagation such as at Grayline on apparent dead bands and low sunspots. Why the anti WSQ slant for the upper HF bands? Carl
