Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

12345JT9 decode r3496 vs r3673

Expand Messages
  • k3wyc
    Feb 16, 2014
    • 0 Attachment

      I stuck with r3496 for a long while as other versions were fielded.  I decided to "upgrade" to r3673 and have been using it for a bit over a week.  Since I started using the new version I have had many failed JT9 decodes for signals that looked ok on the waterfall.  The number of failed decodes seems to have increased significantly since I left r3496.

      Was there any change in the JT9 decoder between r3496 and r3673?

      Anyone else seeing JT9 decode issues with r3673?


      Andy k3wyc.

    • Show all 9 messages in this topic