12345JT9 decode r3496 vs r3673
- Feb 16, 2014
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?
- Next post in topic >>