> can you give us "other blokes" a download address for WSJT-X 1.7.1
There is no download address for 1.7.1 - my copy was debugging code for
the Elecraft audio muting problem.
or an idea when it will be released for the general public?
I have hopes that bug fix version (at the very least) may show up
relatively soon after K1JT gets back on-line after his holiday. My
developer contact tells me discussion of a bug fix/update release is
on the agenda for discussion with Joe (no promises).
K1JT and the other developers have been very clear that they will not
emulate the three pass, aggressive, hinted decoding from JTDX. The
approach in JTDX has far too many false decodes for HF operation.
In fact, I watched it throw multiple false decodes this afternoon
when I was running JTDX and WSJT_X 1.7.1 in parallel.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 5/29/2017 5:04 PM, GL-DJ3IW-Web wrote:
Hello Joe,
can you give us "other blokes" a download address for WSJT-X 1.7.1 - or an
idea when it will be released for the general public?
73 de Goetz DJ3IW
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Joe Subich,
W4TV
Gesendet: Montag, 29. Mai 2017 18:35
An: rtty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: [RTTY] Information please
On 5/29/2017 1:36 PM, Don AA5AU wrote:
One complaint about WSJT-X on JT65 is that it will not decode more
than one signal on the same frequency. If there are two (or more)
signals on the same frequency, WSJT-x will not decode any of them. If
a weak signal gets covered up, WSJT-x will not decode it.
Not in my experience but then I've been running an early version of
WSJT-X 1.7.1 for several months (as a result of trying to debug the
issue among WSJT-X, Commander and the K3 that ended up being resolved
in version 5.56 of the K3 firmware). WSJT-X 1.7.1 regularly decodes
multiple closely spaced signals (using the two pass algorithm where
the first [strongest] signal is subtracted from the stored wave file
and the file decoded again).
I have WSJT-X 1.7.0, 1.7.1 (r 7557) and JTDX all installed on my
"radio" computer but 1.7.1 is the "go to" program here.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 5/29/2017 1:36 PM, Don AA5AU wrote:
My experience with JTDX is similar to Barry's. JTDX seems to decode just
about every signal seen in the waterfall. I've been using JTDX exclusively
now for over six months. I went back to WSJT-x this weekend to try MSK144.
When 6 meters opened with E skip, I switched to JT65 and to my dismay
WSJT-x would only decode half the signals showing in the waterfall. I then
switched to JTDX and it decoded nearly all the signals.
I went back to WSJT-x, defaulted it and tried to get it set up for
better decoding but it was never satisfactory to me. What amazes me most
about JTDX is that is can decode weak signals that are under stronger
signals (WSJT-x will not do this) and it can decode as many as 3 signals
on the exact same frequency. One complaint about WSJT-X on JT65 is that it
will not decode more than one signal on the same frequency. If there are
two (or more) signals on the same frequency, WSJT-x will not decode any of
them. If a weak signal gets covered up, WSJT-x will not decode it. JTDX
will in most cases.
On a very crowded 20 meter band, I've seen JTDX decode more than 24
signals in a single pass. WSJT-x can't come close to this. The notion that
JTDX has more errors doesn't hold water. Rarely do I ever see errors with
JTDX. I saw one yesterday and it surprised me because I hadn't seen one in
a long time.
One positive WSJT-x has over JTDX might be JT9. The enhancements in JTDX
are only for JT65. WSJT-x seems to better with JT9.
Don AA5AU
From: Barry Murrell ZS2EZ <zs2ez@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: rtty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2017 2:38 AM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Information please
Joe, my experiences with JTDX versus WSJT-X (particularly on 80m where I
have been active recently) are very different.... although I can only
compare to WSJT-X 1.7, as this is the only AVAILABLE version - I have
not
compiled software since Pascal 7 in the 80's, and do not have the time,
knowledge or inclination to stumble around trying to "roll my own"
version... this is why I steer clear of Linux too, WHY the developers of
a
program cannot simply provide an installer to test with (like Igor does
with
JTDX and Dave W1HKJ does with FLDigi) I will never understand. As far as
I
am concerned, WSJT-X 1.7.1 etc is NOT available to the general Amateur
community....
As far as JTDX is concerned : The Hint function is optional (but works
extremely well), I have found only an EXTREMELY occasional "False
Decode"
(which the software flags as Questionable) and the number of decoding
passes
are also configurable.
In direct comparison to WSJT-X 1.7, I have found JTDX to be far superior
in
decoding of weak signals (regularly completing QSOs with signals of -26,
-28
and even -30!), massively better at handling overlapping signals, and
it's
Filter feature is AMAZING!
Your mileage may vary, but these are my observations from operating....
as
stated, I have no idea what the UNRELEASED WSJT-X can do, but up against
the
RELEASED version JTDX is FAR better!!!
Of course, these observations are from the bottom end of Africa where
there
are generally only about 4 or 5 "local" stations on the air at any time
-
may be very different when the band is very crowded....
73 de BARRY MURRELL ZS2EZ
KF26ta - Port Elizabeth, South Africa
EPC#0558 DMC#1690 WCC#030 30MDG#4081
DXCC(mixed)#41,146 DXCC(RTTY)#1,916
DXCC(phone)#34,990 DXCC(CW)#11,714
DXCC 40m,30m,20m,17m,15m,12m,10m
WAS Triple Play #492 WAS(RTTY)#538 WAZ(RTTY)#185 WAE-I(mixed)#72
WAZS(mixed)#214 AAA#1569
AS ZR6DXB: VUCC(50MHZ)#1,334 UKSMG WAE(Silver)#75 UKSMG AFRICA#22 WAC
(Satellite)
website : www.zs2ez.co.za
-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joe Subich,
W4TV
Sent: Sunday, 28 May 2017 4:20 PM
To: rtty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Information please
On 5/28/2017 9:04 AM, Ed Muns wrote:
> +1 for JTDX. The advantages are all on JT65 for HF, not JT9,
though.
The issues with JTDX are: 1) the use of "hinted decoding" which uses a
list
of known calls and will find them even if they are not present!
2) overly aggressive decoding which produces a very high level of
"false"
decodes, 3) lack of "two pass" decoding which "nulls out" a stronger
signal
and decodes weaker signals on (nearly) the same frequency.
WSJT-X (particularly in the development branch) is clearly superior to
JTDX
and has the advantage of Joe Taylor's direct involvement.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 5/28/2017 9:04 AM, Ed Muns wrote:
+1 for JTDX. The advantages are all on JT65 for HF, not JT9, though.
73,
Ed W0YK
On May 28, 2017 3:05 AM, Barry Murrell ZS2EZ <zs2ez@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John, you may want to try JTDX, a derivative of WSJT-X optimised
exclusively for HF by UA3DJY.
Unlike WSJT-X (which unless you are prepared to compile your own
version is updated VERY infrequently - last release version is 1.7.0,
while the "Developer" team talk about 1.7.1 with major improvements
which are not generally available) JTDX is constantly updated and
includes it's own mode
(JT10) which is becoming quite popular.
I find that JTDX is considerably more sensitive on receive (hearing a
number of weak stations much better than WSJT-X) and have regularly
managed QSOs at around -28 and -30!!!
The latest JTDX can be downloaded at :
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/N4qQ/7RrTSrusu and more info can be
found at http://www.qrz.lt/ly3bg/JTDX/jtdx1.html
It works with JTAlert too!!
Well worth trying!!
73 de BARRY MURRELL ZS2EZ
KF26ta - Port Elizabeth, South Africa
EPC#0558 DMC#1690 WCC#030 30MDG#4081
DXCC(mixed)#41,146 DXCC(RTTY)#1,916
DXCC(phone)#34,990 DXCC(CW)#11,714
DXCC 40m,30m,20m,17m,15m,12m,10m
WAS Triple Play #492 WAS(RTTY)#538 WAZ(RTTY)#185 WAE-I(mixed)#72
WAZS(mixed)#214 AAA#1569
AS ZR6DXB: VUCC(50MHZ)#1,334 UKSMG WAE(Silver)#75 UKSMG AFRICA#22
WAC
(Satellite)
website : www.zs2ez.co.za
-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John
Barber
Sent: Saturday, 27 May 2017 6:16 PM
To: 'W4GKM' <w4gkm@xxxxxxxxxxx>; rtty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Information please
If you are already set up for another data mode, using AFSK, it's
simple. I started by downloading JT65-HF, set it up and watched the
results. On most HF bands the radio is set to .076 dial frequency.
JT65-HF was disappointing in the user interface and facilities, so I
tried the JT65-HF HB9HQX-Edition improved version, which has been
excellent.
John GW4SKA
-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of W4GKM
Sent: 27 May 2017 14:58
To: rtty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Information please
I have never tried these modes, but I would like to, where do I start.
Nick
W4GKM
On 5/26/2017 9:37 AM, Don AA5AU wrote:
JT65 and JT9 and excellent modes. I have over 144 entities worked on
JT65
alone and have worked all states on 10-80 meters (need only DE & RI
on 160 and AK, HI & ME on 6 meters.
Last night I worked two Japanese stations on 6 meter JT65 running 80
watts
to a 4-element yagi (3 element SteppIR with passive element added)
and this morning JH0INP confirmed our QSO via LotW. There's lots of
activity on 6 meter JT65 in the summer.
I really like JT modes on 160 meters because I seem to be able to
work new
ones I can't hear on CW. I highly recommend JT65 & JT9.
Don AA5AU
From: Bill Turner <dezrat@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: RTTY Reflector <rtty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Information please
------------ ORIGINAL MESSAGE ------------(may be snipped)
On Fri, 26 May 2017 09:20:25 +0100, you wrote:
You could think about using the other data modes. With low power
and poor propagation, PSK can work a lot better than RTTY.
The ultimate move across to the dark side is JT65. I started using
JT65 about 10 days ago and have 60+ countries in the log, operating
just a couple of hours a day.
Very low power is all you need, but it's a horrible slow process
with no skill required. My only motivation is to get to 100 DXCC
then back to
RTTY!
John GW4SKA
REPLY:
Even better than JT65 is JT9. A fraction of the bandwidth and
according to the author, about 2 dB better with weak signals. The
protocol is the same. Give it a try, you'll like it.
73, Bill W6WRT
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
| | Virus-free. www.avg.com |
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|