12352Re: [wsjtgroup] JT9 decode r3496 vs r3673
- Feb 17, 2014Hi Andy and all,
> I stuck with r3496 for a long while as other versionsThe decoder incorporates some necessary trade-offs that balance decoding
> 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.
performance against speed.
There's a straightforward way to investigate your suspicion. You and
other users can easily do this, and at the same time make a contribution
toward future improvement of WSJT-X.
1. Install both versions of WSJT-X. Download links for Version 1.1,
r3496 and Version 1.3, r3673 are on the WSJT web site. They must go
into separate directories, say C:\WSJTX1.1 and C:\WSJT1.3 .
2. Start v1.3, check "Save All" on the Save menu.
3. Let it run for a while, making QSOs if you wish, and make a note of
the UTC for any instance where a JT9 signal looked OK but failed to decode.
4. After you have accumulated several instances of apparent decoding
failures: terminate WSJT-X v1.3, start v1.1, go to "File | Open", and
navigate to the "Save" folder under in the v1.3 installation directory.
5. Open the file(s) that you thought may have had improper failures to
decode, and see if v1.1 does any better. If you find any such examples,
send the *.wav files to me.
-- 73, Joe, K1JT
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>