Pete: you replied with this...I find that WSJT-X works better for me than JT65-HF and is written by Joe Taylor (K1JT) himself.
I see this at his website: WSJT-X implements JT9, a new mode designed especially for the LF, MF, and HF bands, as well as the popular mode JT65. Both modes were designed for making reliable, confirmed QSOs under extreme weak-signal conditions. They use nearly identical message structure and source encoding. And this...A 2 kHz slice of spectrum is essentially full when occupied by ten JT65 signals. As many as 100 JT9 signals can fit into the same space, without overlap. (more efficient is a good thing). Are there like or similar numbers of JT9 ops as there are JT65 ops? Is JT9 rockin' the lower bands - 160, 80 and 40??? I'm "axin'" 'cuz I'm about to load JT65 s/w and get it runnin' 'tween my Microsoft Surface Pro and my KX3 -- I'm not averse to loading WSJT-X and getting a friend of mine to configure he s/w and get it running.....might be more beneficial to go with WSJT-X as it has a "bi-lingual" operating mode so you can switch between the two....is WSJT-X any more difficult to set up or, if one is fairly familiar with the "old JT65"? 72 de Jim Rodenkirch K9JWV ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[email protected] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to [email protected]
