Waterfall differences in Fldigi vs WSJT

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio Software' started by K3RW, Jun 28, 2016.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-3
ad: abrind-2
ad: QSOToday-1
ad: Left-2
  1. K3RW

    K3RW Ham Member QRZ Page

    I'm curious why I am seeing stark differences in the waterfalls between Fldigi and WSJT on the same JT segments.

    If I open Fldigi and adjust the rig squelch, etc, I can get a pretty good signal and see how much noise is in there. Solid background, low noise. I can see JT modes on the waterfall (even though Fldigi doesn't do JT modes).

    If I go to WSJT, I see its waterfall too--but now it doesn't look much like the Fldigi one. It can be much noisier, too quiet, etc., but it really doesn't look as where I had the other one a minute ago.

    If it matters, I open the squelch ALL the way in both programs, and adjust it on the rig. So it would not appear to be a difference of the squelch in the programs, from what I can tell.

    So if I am adjusting to pull a JT weak signal out of the 'snow', does it matter which waterfall I am using to do it? Only thing I could think of is that maybe one program 'pulls better' than the other, so it can be more sensitive. Unfortunately Fldigi doesn't do JT modes.

    This is how I did it before:
    Open Fldigi--adjust it until there is very little but some 'snow'. Looks good--then close it and open WSJT--tell it to decode. Done.

    Not sure that is really the way most people would do it though. Once I started to notice differences in the waterfall, like one was noisy and the other wasn't--it made me wonder if I was doing it wrong. Makes more sense that I should adjust the waterfall in WSJT.

    Its only an issue for JT modes. I use Fldigi for everything else.

Share This Page