Discussion in 'Working Different Modes' started by WH2HAO, Apr 27, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-Geochron
ad: HRDLLC-2
ad: Left-2
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: abrind-2
  1. WH2HAO

    WH2HAO QRZ Moderator Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page


    Does anyone have experience using JT9, the new digital mode. Just curious if it will become a popular mode worth using.
  2. K5RCD

    K5RCD XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    It's a great mode. Very similar to JT65 HF only more robust in the noise of the lower bands and much narrower bandwidth.

    JT9 has really taken off in popularity the past week or so since Laurie, VK3AMA released WSJTX Alert (JTX ALERT). It functions just like JT65 Alert and both can be downloaded at the same time from http://ham-apps.com/.

    Right now the most popular frequencies are 14.078 and 21.078 and 10.130 (or thereabouts). The JT9 GUI has the most popular frequencies already configured, so you only need to click on the band and it will change your radio frequency for you if you have your rig set up for CAT control.

    Download JT9 at http://www.physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjt.html Scroll down to WSJTX and download the latest version.

    You're going to like it. I predict it will surpass JT65 HF in popularity quite soon, and maybe make it obsolete.

    Have fun !
  3. W8MRL

    W8MRL Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I love it. The only downside I've run into is when someone is running to much power but that isn't the program's fault as much as the someone that hasn't realized that 5 watts is about all you need. I've JT9 contacts with Ham's who are running 1 watt or less. I am going to build or I may just buy an attenuator so I can drop my power output below 5 watts

    There isn't much reason to continue to use JT-65 other than there are still many more users running JT-65 so there can be slim pickings sometimes when running JT9.

    For those interested in digital modes definately follow the link above, in Randy's post, an d/l the program.

  4. WH2HAO

    WH2HAO QRZ Moderator Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Rob, why do you say JT65 may be obsolete, I mean what specifically makes JT9 better exactly. I’m still reading up on it.


  5. W8MRL

    W8MRL Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Well, I didn't say JT-65 was obsolete. It's still a popular mode.

    JT9 works very well in noisy conditions and weak signal decoding. According to the author it's about 2 dB more sensitive and uses less than 10% of the bandwidth of JT-65.

  6. W6UV

    W6UV Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Here we go again with another power argument. If JT9 is so efficient, then why are you running 5 whole watts? Shouldn't a few microwatts be enough for anyone?
  7. K2NCC

    K2NCC Ham Member QRZ Page

    It often is. I've never worked as much QRP before using the likes of JT65, JT9 and WSPR.

    Most rigs I've known natively only go down to 5 or maybe 1W.

    But 5W is hardly "all you need".
  8. W8MRL

    W8MRL Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    As I said in my original post, I'm looking at an attenuator to cut my output further.

    What do you mean by "another power argument"? I only commented because I dislike an overloaded waterfall caused by someone either very close or running more than minimal power. Maybe you enjoy an overloaded waterfall, but it's not my preference. Why are you being such a curmugeon? Has this been a bad day?
  9. K3DCW

    K3DCW QRZ Lifetime Member #212 Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber Life Member QRZ Page

    Why blame power for your "overloaded waterfall" when the most common culprit is poor AGC and/or RF Input setting management? Why blame the other operator if you are unwilling to tweak the rig for the optimum balance of settings?

    Power is a relatively minor player in JT9 (and JT65) propagation. The difference between 5 and 100 watts is only 13dBm, or about 2 S-units. Propagation path variables can result in an impact that exceeds 20dBm, or in other words equivalent to the difference between 10 and 1000 watts. JT9 (and JT65) is NOT a QRP mode, it is a weak-signal mode...there is a difference.

    All of that being said, oftentimes you 5 watts (or much less) is indeed all you need. However, at least when using JT65, there have been times where 100 watts was what was NEEDED to complete the QSO over the path I attempted. That doesn't make me a bad operator as long as my signal is kept clean.


  10. K2NCC

    K2NCC Ham Member QRZ Page

    So true. I could use 1W to get a -02 report from a station 8000 miles away and get a -22 report with 100W 800 miles away. Or vice versa.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

ad: k1jek