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

RE: WATERFALL wsjt-x

Expand Messages
  • rupertdetonquedec
    I agree that the waterfall display on JT65HF has the very useful smooth facility. I m not sure if this has a bearing on the decode sensitivity, I assumed it
    Message 1 of 4 , Sep 23, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

      I agree that the waterfall display on JT65HF has the very useful "smooth" facility.

      I'm not sure if this has a bearing on the decode sensitivity, I assumed it was just the display -

      however, I have run several tests on 50Mhz JT65 on very marginal signals, with wsjt-x and JT65HF running side by side, and JT65HF often has the edge by about 2dB

      ie a -24dB signal is decoded by both, but a -26dB signal is only decoded by JT65HF.


      Regarding the thread about very strong signals (on 20M I assume), can I point out that many rigs do not let you switch off AGC, you can only change it to "fast" or just reduce RF gain.


      John

      GW4MBN



      --- In wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com, <f8rz@...> wrote:

      Hello all...


      Instead of re-opening the boring thread about power, I think we should
      focuse on the waterfall itself.

      Sorry to say that it is not yet what it should/could be.

      Like most of you I used JT65-HF before, and was perfectly satisfied with
      the waterfall, with the help of the "smooth" command, which provides a
      drastic levelling of all the signals.

      If this type of signal processing existed in WSJT-X, it would allow
      seeing comfortably the smallest JT9 signals and the biggest JT65 as well.

      Presenty the choice is seeing correctly the JT9 sigs, - and white cheese
      on the left part of the WF, or having the biggest JT65 ok-and losing
      most of the JT9... (and some of the JT65).
      (note that I say "seeing" and not "decoding", which is a different
      matter...)

      Our beloved designers are necessarily aware of this situation, and I'm
      sure that some day they will give us an enhanced display... (Thanks by
      advance !)

      Best 73 to all


      Jean F8RZ
    • Joe Taylor
      Hi Jean, ... ... There are many reasonable ways to optimize a waterfall display, depending on what signals you want to see. For example, you might want to see
      Message 2 of 4 , Sep 26, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Jean,

        F8RZ wrote:
        > Instead of re-opening the boring thread about power, I think we should
        > focuse on the waterfall itself.
        >
        > Sorry to say that it is not yet what it should/could be.
        ...

        There are many reasonable ways to optimize a waterfall display,
        depending on what signals you want to see. For example, you might want
        to see the weakest possible signals, or you might want maximum dynamic
        range.

        Please save one or two example *.wav files and screen shots that
        demonstrate waterfall performance "not yet what it should/could be".
        Send them to me, along with a description of what you think is sub-par.
        If you can run JT65-HF simultaneously, send a screen shot of its
        preferred waterfall display, as well.

        -- 73, Joe, K1JT
      • David Cole
        Joe, Thanks for writing the software BTW! Is there a writeup someplace on optimizing for max dynamic? -- Thanks and 73 s, Dave (NK7Z), Moderator Yahoo s MixW
        Message 3 of 4 , Sep 26, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Joe,
          Thanks for writing the software BTW! Is there a writeup someplace on
          optimizing for max dynamic?
          --
          Thanks and 73's,
          Dave (NK7Z),
          Moderator Yahoo's MixW group, Yahoo's Dopplergram group, and Yahoo
          MM-SSTV group.
          For equipment reviews see: http://www.nk7z.net




          On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 12:38 -0400, Joe Taylor wrote:
          >
          > Hi Jean,
          >
          > F8RZ wrote:
          > > Instead of re-opening the boring thread about power, I think we
          > should
          > > focuse on the waterfall itself.
          > >
          > > Sorry to say that it is not yet what it should/could be.
          > ...
          >
          > There are many reasonable ways to optimize a waterfall display,
          > depending on what signals you want to see. For example, you might
          > want
          > to see the weakest possible signals, or you might want maximum
          > dynamic
          > range.
          >
          > Please save one or two example *.wav files and screen shots that
          > demonstrate waterfall performance "not yet what it should/could be".
          > Send them to me, along with a description of what you think is
          > sub-par.
          > If you can run JT65-HF simultaneously, send a screen shot of its
          > preferred waterfall display, as well.
          >
          > -- 73, Joe, K1JT
          >
          >
          >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.