ad: wmr-1

JT9 - WOW! Very sensitive indeed!

Discussion in 'Working Different Modes' started by W7UUU, Aug 18, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: L-Geochron
ad: Left-2
ad: abrind-2
  1. K4VLF

    K4VLF Ham Member QRZ Page

    Decode issues: by selecting a NORMAL decode, the process does finish in 5/6/7 seconds, but nothing shows up in the windows. 1.5 GHz laptop uses 100% processing horsepower during decode. Receive level (bar graph on left side) is mid-range or higher.

    Manual decode of previous data stream is also unsuccessful. Weird.

    I use a signallink.

    I will go back and look at decoding the sample waveforms - even that sometimes fails. And I did try the decoding tweak to the .ini file with no improvements.
  2. KA0HCP

    KA0HCP XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    While it makes sense practically, and also from a courtesy perspective to shift frequency, the fact that you decode both of them shoots holes in your complaint.
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2014
  3. N2ADV

    N2ADV XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    The fact that I decode both of them shoots holes in my complaint? How? Please elaborate. I'm CQ'ing, he responds to my CQ, and then CQ's where he answered my CQ? How does that shoot a hole in my complaint?

    (by the way, that guy does this to people when ever the band is crowded... rather than wait for an open slot, he'll respond to a CQ and then CQ right after in the same spot... then others see a person from UAE CQ'ing and pretty much guarantees that there'll be people responding to him, thereby edging the original person totally out of the picture. I've seen him do it to others before).

    jesus... do they even freaking teach reading comprehension in school anymore?
  4. AA8TA

    AA8TA Ham Member QRZ Page

    I was trying to figure out that statement, too. Double interesting - A61ZX's QRZ page with the quote at the top.
  5. W0BTU

    W0BTU Ham Member QRZ Page

    Why don't more hams use WSJT-X and JT9?

    What I want to know is, why haven't more hams switched from WSJT and JT65 over to WSJT-X which includes JT9?

    JT9 is a big improvement over JT65 on 160 through at least 20 meters. JT65 was developed for EME (where there's not near as much noise), and is not as good as JT9 for cutting through the type of QRN and QRM found on HF.

    Note what the inventor and software author of those modes says about JT9 vs. JT65 on the official web site at :
    "WSJT-X implements JT9,...designed especially for the LF, MF, and HF bands, as well as the popular mode JT65. Both modes were designed for making reliable, confirmed QSOs under extreme weak-signal conditions. They use nearly identical message structure and source encoding. JT65 was designed for EME (“moonbounce”) on the VHF/UHF bands and has also proved very effective for worldwide QRP communication at HF; in contrast, JT9 is optimized for HF and lower frequencies. JT9 is about 2 dB more sensitive than JT65A while using less than 10% of the bandwidth. World-wide QSOs are possible with power levels of a few watts and compromise antennas. A 2 kHz slice of spectrum is essentially full when occupied by ten JT65 signals. As many as 100 JT9 signals can fit into the same space, without overlap.

    "WSJT-X offers a "bi-lingual" operating mode in which you can transmit and receive JT65 and JT9 signals, switching between modes automatically as needed. Displayed bandwidth can be as large as 5 kHz. If your receiver has as upper-sideband filter at least 4 kHz wide, you can have all the typical JT65 and JT9 activity on screen at once, available for making QSOs with a click of the mouse. Even with standard SSB-width IF filters, switching between JT65 and JT9 modes is quick and convenient. ... "
  6. W7UUU

    W7UUU Principal Moderator Lifetime Member 133 Administrator Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber Life Member QRZ Page

    Mike: I agree 100%!!! WAY better software IMO, do JT65 AND JT9 - at the same time - and JT9 is freaking AWESOME!!

    Got my Digital WAS with JT65 a few months back on the older software - now embarking on JT9 with X

    If you think JT65 with 10-30 watts is a kick, try JT9 with ONE!!!

  7. W0JMP

    W0JMP XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Dang it Fred...we NEED a "like" button on this sight. How do we get it?


    Danny, W0JMP
  8. N2ADV

    N2ADV XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    I can't wait to see what comes next!
  9. W7UUU

    W7UUU Principal Moderator Lifetime Member 133 Administrator Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber Life Member QRZ Page

    I've had many sheepish grins receiving a -01 dB report on JT65 from a guy I just sent a -22 only to realize
    I'd just come from CW and forgot to "throttle down"..... or had been at 50 watts just to "make it happen"
    on the previous Q - but now? Getting a +01 when I'm running ONE WATT?? Not much more "down" I can
    go given my setup with FT-950 and Signalink LOL!

    I've started logging JT9 with an accurate power listing - I'm going to put my Oak Hills QRP meter in line
    on a switch (PLEASE Dave - don't forget to switch it out on SSB/CW!!) and dial the Signalink down as far as
    I can get it to go reliably (FT-950 only goes to 5w - no lower) - W.A.S. at .25w sounds like fun!! Especially
    once the 3-element + WARC beam is up and running (this weekend)

  10. N2ADV

    N2ADV XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    thats another advantage of JT9: with JT65, -01dB is as high as you can get. If you are louder than that, you're stuck with -01. With JT9, you can get reports above that (+01, +02, etc). It's all subjective based on the program and the audio setup of course but it's still pretty neat.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

ad: M2Ant-1