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

Re: In the works for WSJT-X

Expand Messages
  • g4ilo
    My K3 has both of those filters. Do you have to make any configuration change to allow the wider filters to be used in DATA mode? Julian, G4ILO
    Message 1 of 25 , Jun 10, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      My K3 has both of those filters. Do you have to make any configuration change to allow the wider filters to be used in DATA mode?

      Julian, G4ILO

      --- In wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Outstanding! The K3 can handle 4.2 KHz if one has either the AM (6
      > KHz) or FM (13 KHz) filter installed.
    • Joe Subich, W4TV
      Simply enable them in data modes. It s fairly obvious when using the Elecraft K3 Utility and can be done from the menu system by selecting data mode, then
      Message 2 of 25 , Jun 10, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Simply enable them in data modes. It's fairly obvious when using
        the Elecraft K3 Utility and can be done from the menu system by
        selecting data mode, then CONFIG:FL# ON for the appropriate filter
        slot.

        73,

        ... Joe, W4TV


        On 6/10/2013 5:14 AM, g4ilo wrote:
        > My K3 has both of those filters. Do you have to make any configuration change to allow the wider filters to be used in DATA mode?
        >
        > Julian, G4ILO
        >
        > --- In wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@...> wrote:
        >>
        >>
        >> Outstanding! The K3 can handle 4.2 KHz if one has either the AM (6
        >> KHz) or FM (13 KHz) filter installed.
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
        > wsjtgroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > WSJTGroup Homepage --> http://www.wsjtgroup.org/
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • g4ilo
        But that s only for RX. My K3 Utility doesn t have an option to select a wider filter for Data TX. Having a wider bandwidth on RX than TX makes it likely that
        Message 3 of 25 , Jun 10, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          But that's only for RX. My K3 Utility doesn't have an option to select a wider filter for Data TX. Having a wider bandwidth on RX than TX makes it likely that you'll transmit out of the TX filter passband.

          Julian, G4ILO

          --- In wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > Simply enable them in data modes. It's fairly obvious when using
          > the Elecraft K3 Utility and can be done from the menu system by
          > selecting data mode, then CONFIG:FL# ON for the appropriate filter
          > slot.
          >
        • Joe Subich, W4TV
          You don t use the wider filter for transmit. ... 73, ... Joe, W4TV
          Message 4 of 25 , Jun 10, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            You don't use the wider filter for transmit.

            In a previous response, K1JT wrote:
            >> WSJT-X v1.1 handles this already. If it wants to transmit at, say,
            >> 3472 Hz it sets XIT to +2000 Hz and the Tx audio tones start at
            >> 1472 Hz.
            >>
            >> I've been using it this way for a week or so. Works fine.

            73,

            ... Joe, W4TV


            On 6/10/2013 8:47 AM, g4ilo wrote:
            > But that's only for RX. My K3 Utility doesn't have an option to select a wider filter for Data TX. Having a wider bandwidth on RX than TX makes it likely that you'll transmit out of the TX filter passband.
            >
            > Julian, G4ILO
            >
            > --- In wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@...> wrote:
            >>
            >>
            >> Simply enable them in data modes. It's fairly obvious when using
            >> the Elecraft K3 Utility and can be done from the menu system by
            >> selecting data mode, then CONFIG:FL# ON for the appropriate filter
            >> slot.
            >>
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
            > wsjtgroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > WSJTGroup Homepage --> http://www.wsjtgroup.org/
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Lance Collister, W7GJ
            Do you have plans to make the JT65A decoder as sensitive as the one in WSJT9? The one in MAP65 appears to be a couple dB less sensitive than the highly
            Message 5 of 25 , Jun 10, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Do you have plans to make the JT65A decoder as sensitive as the one in WSJT9? The
              one in MAP65 appears to be a couple dB less sensitive than the highly optimized
              decoder in WSJT. MNI TNX for this exciting evolution of the user interface! VY
              73, Lance

              On 6/9/2013 2:31 PM, Joe Taylor wrote:
              > A quick follow-up to my first message in this thread. The JT65 decoder
              > is now installed in WSJT-X and working well. See the screen shot at
              >
              > http://www.physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx_1.1b.png
              >
              > for a few early results. JT65 decodes are marked with "#".
              >
              > -- Joe, K1JT
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
              > wsjtgroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > WSJTGroup Homepage --> http://www.wsjtgroup.org/
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >


              --
              Lance Collister, W7GJ
              (ex WA3GPL, WA1JXN, WA1JXN/C6A, ZF2OC/ZF8, E51SIX, 3D2LR, 5W0GJ, E6M)
              P.O. Box 73
              Frenchtown, MT 59834-0073
              USA
              TEL: (406) 626-5728
              QTH: DN27ub
              URL: http://www.bigskyspaces.com/w7gj
              Windows Messenger: W7GJ@...
              Skype: lanceW7GJ
              2m DXCC #11/6m DXCC #815

              Interested in 6m EME? Ask me about subscribing to the Magic Band EME
              email group, or just fill in the request box at the bottom of my web
              page (above)!
            • Joe Taylor
              Hi Lance, ... What s the basis for your assertion that MAP65 is a couple dB less sensitive than the highly optimized decoder in WSJT ? Or your implication
              Message 6 of 25 , Jun 10, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Lance,

                W7GJ wrote:
                > Do you have plans to make the JT65A decoder as sensitive as the one in
                > WSJT9? The one in MAP65 appears to be a couple dB less sensitive than
                > the highly optimized decoder in WSJT.

                What's the basis for your assertion that MAP65 is "a couple dB less
                sensitive than the highly optimized decoder in WSJT"? Or your
                implication that the decoder in MAP65 is any less highly optimized?

                Such impressions have never stood up to close examination.

                Of course I've made exhaustive comparisons among the various decoding
                algorithms and their implementation myself -- many times. I will be
                doing so again with the JT65 decoder in WSJT-X.

                For a wholly independent look at the question by W3SZ, see the detailed
                experiment and analysis on his web site:
                http://www.nitehawk.com/w3sz/LinradMAP65Statistics.htm

                The bottom-line conclusion from W3SZ:

                "The MAP65 Decoder on same frequency as the WSJT Decoder at same time as
                the WSJT Decoder decoded about 10% of messages WSJT did not, and WSJT
                decoded about 10% of messages that MAP65 did not."

                The W3SZ test was based on observations of EME signals on 144 MHz, made
                during the 2013 ARRL EME Contest. I have demonstrated the same thing,
                to my own satisfaction, in a laboratory setting. It's good to see that
                real-world results are fully consistent with expectations.

                -- 73, Joe, K1JT
              • Lance Collister, W7GJ
                Hi Joe, Thanks for the reassuring guidance! I have not tried MAP65 for a couple years, and the last time I tried it, I found that it was a couple dB less
                Message 7 of 25 , Jun 11, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Joe,

                  Thanks for the reassuring guidance! I have not tried MAP65 for a couple years, and
                  the last time I tried it, I found that it was a couple dB less sensitive than
                  JT65A. However, it sounds like I may not have had my settings optimized in
                  SDR-RADIO or my SDR-IQ. I will try to install the most recent version of MAP65
                  again after Es season is over and make a new comparison here on 6m EME.

                  Best wishes for a great summer and thanks again for all your wonderful work on this
                  sensitive software! VY 73, Lance


                  On 6/11/2013 2:25 AM, Joe Taylor wrote:
                  > Hi Lance,
                  >
                  > W7GJ wrote:
                  >> Do you have plans to make the JT65A decoder as sensitive as the one in
                  >> WSJT9? The one in MAP65 appears to be a couple dB less sensitive than
                  >> the highly optimized decoder in WSJT.
                  > What's the basis for your assertion that MAP65 is "a couple dB less
                  > sensitive than the highly optimized decoder in WSJT"? Or your
                  > implication that the decoder in MAP65 is any less highly optimized?
                  >
                  > Such impressions have never stood up to close examination.
                  >
                  > Of course I've made exhaustive comparisons among the various decoding
                  > algorithms and their implementation myself -- many times. I will be
                  > doing so again with the JT65 decoder in WSJT-X.
                  >
                  > For a wholly independent look at the question by W3SZ, see the detailed
                  > experiment and analysis on his web site:
                  > http://www.nitehawk.com/w3sz/LinradMAP65Statistics.htm
                  >
                  > The bottom-line conclusion from W3SZ:
                  >
                  > "The MAP65 Decoder on same frequency as the WSJT Decoder at same time as
                  > the WSJT Decoder decoded about 10% of messages WSJT did not, and WSJT
                  > decoded about 10% of messages that MAP65 did not."
                  >
                  > The W3SZ test was based on observations of EME signals on 144 MHz, made
                  > during the 2013 ARRL EME Contest. I have demonstrated the same thing,
                  > to my own satisfaction, in a laboratory setting. It's good to see that
                  > real-world results are fully consistent with expectations.
                  >
                  > -- 73, Joe, K1JT
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
                  > wsjtgroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > WSJTGroup Homepage --> http://www.wsjtgroup.org/
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  --
                  Lance Collister, W7GJ
                  (ex WA3GPL, WA1JXN, WA1JXN/C6A, ZF2OC/ZF8, E51SIX, 3D2LR, 5W0GJ, E6M)
                  P.O. Box 73
                  Frenchtown, MT 59834-0073
                  USA
                  TEL: (406) 626-5728
                  QTH: DN27ub
                  URL: http://www.bigskyspaces.com/w7gj
                  Windows Messenger: W7GJ@...
                  Skype: lanceW7GJ
                  2m DXCC #11/6m DXCC #815

                  Interested in 6m EME? Ask me about subscribing to the Magic Band EME
                  email group, or just fill in the request box at the bottom of my web
                  page (above)!
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.