That's one of the great things about Amateur Radio. There is literally something for everyone.
73 Lyn, W0LEN -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Drew AF2Z Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 9:57 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Elecraft] FT8 - was "On Second Thought, I'll Take The Stairs" Please- *nobody* is asking JT to save CW by giving us an extra 6-8 dB SNR. I hope that is not the next Goldilocks mode in the pipeline. I assume proponents of such a cobbled up "user interface" would feel perfectly justified in "sharing" even more CW frequency space? No thanks. 73, Drew AF2Z On 07/12/20 20:57, David Gilbert wrote: > > > Not quite. I'm aware of JS8 and tried it more than a year ago, but it > still has much of the rigidity of the WSJT-X user interface and isn't as > basic as I think would be desirable. > > Think of it this way ... CW works fine as both a contest mode, DXing > mode, and conversational mode. Underlaying CW with a well configured > digital signal processing scheme like that which is under FT8, except > with a different user interface than either WSJT-X or JS8, could be > equally versatile but with maybe 6-8 db better S/N ... possibly by an > even greater margin if the decoding allowed errors instead of being all > or nothing. > > I'm not saying text-to-CW is the only way to reap the benefit of modern > digital signal processing ... only using it as an example. > > People only interested in a contact will probably always prefer > WSJT-X/FT8 because it does that very well, but both contesting and rag > chewing could really use a different (simpler) structure while still > utilizing the superior weak signal peformance of modern digital signal > processing. I guarantee that it is possible to do so. > > 73, > Dave AB7E > > > On 7/12/2020 6:18 PM, Lyn Norstad wrote: >> Enter JS8Call. >> >> All the technology of FT8, plus all of the conversationality of CW, >> RTTY and SSB rolled into one. >> >> If you haven't tried it, you really should. It's developer, Jordan >> Sherer (KN4CRD) has done a terrific job with it and I am honored to >> have been a part of the beta team almost since day one. >> >> http://js8call.com/ >> >> 73 >> Lyn, W0LEN >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Gilbert >> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2020 7:40 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [Elecraft] FT8 - was "On Second Thought, I'll Take The Stairs" >> >> >> Well, the fact is that the coding and processing behind modes like FT8 >> doesn't have to be as rigid as is implemented in WSJT-X. It only >> requires that information be sent and received in time frames, and those >> time frames are simply a function of three variables ... bandwidth, >> rate, and number of characters in the message frame. It would be >> possible to change any of those, such as widening the bandwidth to >> increase the number of characters for the same time frame. >> >> It would also be possible to send text but have it converted to CW on >> the other end. Or even to key CW that gets converted to text before >> transmission ... i.e., CW to CW except with significantly better S/N >> performance. If the user was willing to live with a narrow bandwidth >> single conversation format, clock synchronization isn't even really >> needed. And if we were willing to live with a single conversation >> format, there would be no point in cramming everyone into 2.4 KHz and we >> could spread out like we do for every other mode. >> >> I'm no expert, but I think that the coding could have enough error >> checking to allow busted message frames to be printed (or converted to >> CW) ... although of course with errors. The extra error processing >> would reduce the character count, though, all other things being equal. >> >> The point is that the digital signal processing behind FT8 is extremely >> powerful and could be adapted to other user formats with a lot more >> flexibility than we have with FT8. The hams who just dismiss FT8 out of >> hand really don't understand the broader weak signal applicability of it. >> >> 73, >> Dave AB7E >> >> >> >> On 7/12/2020 4:53 PM, Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT wrote: >>> Yeah, great, reliable at or below the noise floor, but if all you're >>> doing is meeting the somewhat arbitrary minimum that defines a QSO, >>> what's the point? >>> >>> I mean seriously, can you even ask about the weather? Just say "hi?" >>> >>> Meh. >>> >>> I'm fine with typing, but I want a real live person typing back, and >>> if we can type back and forth for an hour, that's great. >>> >>> 73 -- Lynn >>> >>> On 7/12/20 2:33 PM, Wayne Burdick wrote: >>>> The argument for digital modes like FT8 is that they're reliable at >>>> or below the noise floor, making it possible to work lots of DX even >>>> if solar conditions are very poor. Simplicity of protocol is a side >>>> effect of this design. ______________________________________________________________ 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]
