Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+FT\-8\s+performance\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+FT\-8\s+performance\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: FT-8 performance (score: 1): Author: K4SAV <RadioXX@charter.net>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 08:17:12 -0500; I get the feeling that I must be the only person that has ever tested FT-8 to the extreme to see what it can do. It seems that everyone else just assumes it will do what the published information say; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00009.html (10,983 bytes)
2. Re: Topband: FT-8 performance (score: 1): Author: Marco Cogoni <cogoni@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 17:09:29 +0200; Hi, I agree with Jerry. I spent a few weeks trying to use FT8 to obtain antenna radiation patterns and I discovered how the SNR is computed: it's totally flawed. Basically WSJTX computes the number i; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00013.html (14,764 bytes)
3. Re: Topband: FT-8 performance (score: 1): Author: Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 10:15:22 -0500; Very interesting. How does JT9 compare, especially in regards to the noise floor issue that Mark raised? 73, Mike www.w0btu.com _________________ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topba; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00014.html (7,263 bytes)
4. Re: Topband: FT-8 performance (score: 1): Author: Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 10:16:09 -0500; I meant Jerry, not Mark. Sorry. _________________ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00015.html (7,536 bytes)
5. Re: Topband: FT-8 performance (score: 1): Author: Michael Walker <va3mw@portcredit.net>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 11:16:24 -0400; Good morning Do we know if the SNR is calculated over the RF passband filter width, or is is calculated over AF filter bandwidth in the WSJTx engine, which it knows? There is a big difference. Mike v; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00016.html (15,095 bytes)
6. Re: Topband: FT-8 performance (score: 1): Author: Tim Shoppa <tshoppa@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 13:40:20 -0400; We went thorugh a similar discussion here a year ago about the "cooked" S/N statistics. Or at least they are cooked in a way that no CW operator would cook them, by considering a bandwidth 50 times w; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00026.html (13,221 bytes)
7. Re: Topband: FT-8 performance (score: 1): Author: uy0zg <uy0zg@mksat.net>; Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2019 21:12:19 +0300; Is the main problem here in efficiency? The main thing here - the signal is not heard by a person! -- Nick, UY0ZG http://www.topband.in.ua Tim Shoppa 2019-08-01 20:40: The "work signals way down in t; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00031.html (8,150 bytes)
8. Re: Topband: FT-8 performance (score: 1): Author: Michael Walker <va3mw@portcredit.net>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 14:46:35 -0400; You might want to listen to this TAPR presentation on Noise and Noise calculations. https://youtu.be/xXXj1Ko4ZXg I found it pretty interesting. Mike va3mw _________________ Searchable Archives: http:; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00039.html (8,915 bytes)
9. Re: Topband: FT-8 performance (score: 1): Author: K4SAV <RadioXX@charter.net>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 14:03:40 -0500; W0BTU directed a question to me about JT-9. I have never tested JT-9 so I don't have any information to supply on that subject. The S/N number supplied by FT-8 was only a curiosity to me because I co; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00045.html (8,568 bytes)
10. Re: Topband: FT-8 performance (score: 1): Author: Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 14:09:20 -0500; Do either JT9 or FT8 *really* need a wide SSB filter? What happens if we use a good narrow CW filter instead? 73, Mike www.w0btu.com _________________ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00046.html (8,972 bytes)
11. Re: Topband: FT-8 performance (score: 1): Author: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 12:45:41 -0700; It is instructive to calculate the Shannon maximum theoretical data rate (power limited case) (refer to wikipedia page for Shannon-Hartley theorem). If S/N ratio (BW=2,500 Hz) = -24 dB, then S/N rati; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00049.html (9,089 bytes)
12. Re: Topband: FT-8 performance (score: 1): Author: "James Wolf" <jbwolf@comcast.net>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 16:27:33 -0400; I think there is some misunderstanding of bandwidth using FT-8. A single FT8 "signal" occupies somewhere just a hair more than 50 Hz. However, that is not the number to use for calculating the equiva; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00052.html (8,822 bytes)
13. Re: Topband: FT-8 performance (score: 1): Author: Marco Cogoni <cogoni@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 22:29:29 +0200; If anybody's interested in trying my version of the python FT8 decoder with a more sensible SNR implementation just go here: https://github.com/mcogoni/weakmon I modified the code to look for the low; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00053.html (10,700 bytes)
14. Re: Topband: FT-8 performance (score: 1): Author: K4SAV <RadioXX@charter.net>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 16:09:55 -0500; I'm not sure how FT-8 calculates the reported S/N number. I found very little information on the subject and what I did find was not easily understandable. What I did was an experiment in which I was; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00055.html (9,521 bytes)
15. Re: Topband: FT-8 performance (score: 1): Author: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 14:14:23 -0700; The power limited Shannon limit I posted about today is independent of equivalent noise bandwidth The equivalent noise bandwidth of an FT8 detected tone is only 6.25 Hz. So -26 dB S/N ratio in a 2500; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00057.html (9,385 bytes)
16. Re: Topband: FT-8 performance (score: 1): Author: Charlie Young <weeksmgr@hotmail.com>; Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2019 23:55:45 +0000; Hello Jerry When FT8 came out in 2017, I tried it. Once past the gee whiz factor of the technology, I did not care for it. Being a traditional CW DX chaser on all bands, making FT8 QSOs did nothing f; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00150.html (14,213 bytes)
17. Re: Topband: FT-8 performance (score: 1): Author: "Paul Ferguson" <Paul@PaulFerguson.us>; Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2019 16:24:23 -0400; Jerry, The difference in the FT8 reported SNR and how most hams think of SNR seems explained well by Jim, KC5RUO. http://www.arrl.org/forum/topics/view/1957 https://tapr.org/pdf/DCC2018-KC5RUO-TheRea; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00163.html (10,970 bytes)
18. Re: Topband: FT-8 performance (score: 1): Author: K4SAV <RadioXX@charter.net>; Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2019 17:38:35 -0500; Thanks Paul. I had read one of those articles before. I didn't find the more detailed one earlier when I was looking. He is relating the S/N reported by the digital modes to what it really should be.; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00166.html (11,697 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 18
Page: [1]