Jim, exactly!
-Original Message-
From: Jim Brown [mailto:k...@audiosystemsgroup.com]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 2:29 PM
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 gain adjustment
On 4/26/2019 1:30 PM, Deisher, Michael wrote:
> BTW, in my experience wsjtx does
Ria and Brian,
Good points and I was unaware of the SOTA QRP activity.
The clash then is how to fit it in. My expectation is that it will need a
channel bandwidth of at least 4kHz - and in a fully fledged contest I would
expect it to spill wider than that at least on the primary bands of 40
I'm not sure a WARC ban (not band, but ban) is necessary. This is
touted as a contest mode but people will use it for regular DX
contacts if it saves them time versus FT8. I can even see some
DXpeditions using it to replace or supplement RTTY contacts. Does it
have or support Fox and Hound mode?
Grant, I'd respectfully discourage any lower than about .065 for 20/15/10m.
.060 is the standard CW QRP activity frequency for each of those bands, and
.061 to .064 are the standard calling frequencies for CW SOTA activations
in most if not all IARU regions. The majority of the activity centers on
On 4/26/2019 1:30 PM, Deisher, Michael wrote:
BTW, in my experience wsjtx does not work half-bad with acoustic
coupling.
YES! By that I mean, and I think you mean, the computer mic picking up
the sound from the speaker in the radio and, by Windoze accident,
feeding that to WSJT-X.
So I
Thanks, Bill. My intuition came from thinking of power as the integral of the
magnitude squared of the signal over the time-frequency extent. I reasoned
that doubling the bandwidth should double the power, all else being the same.
But all else is not the same as you pointed out.
BTW, in my
Hi Mike,
you are mixing concepts that should not be mixed there. The ~90 Hz
bandwidth figure is real, it results from the tone spacing and the
symbol rate. Your should really try and think of it as a continuum
rather than individual tones when talking about bandwidth. The decoder
extracts
OK. I used the word incorrectly. Thanks for pointing that out.
73, Mike KK7ER
-Original Message-
From: Jim Brown [mailto:k...@audiosystemsgroup.com]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 11:33 AM
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [wsjt-devel] Acoustic vs. Audio Frequency
On
On 4/26/2019 11:14 AM, Deisher, Michael wrote:
I realized that just after pressing send. The 90Hz bandwidth (I call it
acoustic bandwidth since it is encoded as a PCM audio signal)
You're confusing the vibration of air with an electrical signal at audio
frequencies. The word "acoustic" and
Hi Bill,
I realized that just after pressing send. The 90Hz bandwidth (I call it
acoustic bandwidth since it is encoded as a PCM audio signal) is occupied by a
spectrally narrow tone at any given point in time so my concern is not valid.
The concern would be valid for other modulation
On 26/04/2019 18:51, Deisher, Michael wrote:
FT4 acoustic bandwidth is nearly twice that of FT8.
Hi Mike,
that is not correct. The FT4 signal is one-tone GFSK. At any point in
time there is only one tone with constant amplitude. In this respect the
difference between FT8 and FT4 is that FT8
I asked this question in response to the message on the Facebook group but
perhaps that is the wrong venue. FT4 acoustic bandwidth is nearly twice that
of FT8. With audio gain unchanged when switching from FT8 to FT4, I would
expect power out to almost double (or to saturate, etc.). This
I have all of that checked as in clearing the cq field after each call
already. The only issue I see is when I just cut the software on and/or
change bands sometimes that's when a lot of these false codes come up even
before I transmit anything. Sometimes the software is just sitting there
and
Hi Mike,
as others have suggested, AP decoding will raise the probability of
false decodes a little. One thing you can do to reduce the false decode
probability is to ensure the DX Call filed is cleared when you are not
working or attempting to work another station. You can check the option
FT8 and all bands. It just pops up.
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:28 AM Bill Somerville
wrote:
> On 26/04/2019 16:04, Mike Oakley wrote:
> > I continue to get false decodes everyday even when I am not
> > transmitting, for example today I cut my rig on and loaded the
> > software and then I got a
Hi!
Perhaps I'm bit early (could not wait few days..) but compiled 2.1.0
from source and generated few audio files with ft4sim.
When playing with them I did see only UDP messages #0 (heartbeat), #1
(status) and #5 (log) when pressed "log"
Message that I was after was #2 (decode).
Did I do
And thanks for the reply as well.
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019, 11:24 AM Mike Oakley wrote:
> From what I gather the false decodes always end with the ?a2 so far but
> some from what I am getting do not have that. I just didn't know if it was
> something I was doing wrong that's all. No I don't want to
>From what I gather the false decodes always end with the ?a2 so far but
some from what I am getting do not have that. I just didn't know if it was
something I was doing wrong that's all. No I don't want to cut those out so
I guess I can ignore them as long as I know what they are.
On Fri, Apr
On 26/04/2019 16:04, Mike Oakley wrote:
I continue to get false decodes everyday even when I am not
transmitting, for example today I cut my rig on and loaded the
software and then I got a false decode before anything even popped on
my screen. Can someone tell me why I am getting these and how
You can turn off AP decoding but, of course, you no longer have the advantage
of AP decoding (whether that’s a loss is up to you).
Or, you could ignore them since you’re aware they’re false decodes random
patterns in the static can make the program spit out a false decode and it is
just
I continue to get false decodes everyday even when I am not transmitting,
for example today I cut my rig on and loaded the software and then I got a
false decode before anything even popped on my screen. Can someone tell me
why I am getting these and how do I stop them?
Grant's suggested frequencies make sense to me. I would support his
recommendations.
Don AA5AU
On Friday, April 26, 2019, 6:18:08 AM CDT, Grant VK5GR
wrote:
Joe et al,
A word if I may about frequency choices. Some of those proposed for FT4
probably leave a bit to be desired. Here are
Köszi!
Nekem is jönnek ezek a levelek!
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:19 AM Grant VK5GR wrote:
> Joe et al,
>
> A word if I may about frequency choices. Some of those proposed for FT4
> probably leave a bit to be desired. Here are some thoughts to consider:
>
> 80m 3.595 - PROPOSE 3562kHz - 3595 is
Joe et al,
A word if I may about frequency choices. Some of those proposed for FT4
probably leave a bit to be desired. Here are some thoughts to consider:
80m 3.595 - PROPOSE 3562kHz - 3595 is completely out of band for JA
completely and into the phone part of the band outside of Region 2. My
On 25 Apr 2019 at 14:30, Bill Somerville wrote:
> Frank,
>
> WSJT-X tries to prevent *Fox* FT8 DXpedition mode stations from
> operating on the "usual" FT8 frequencies. Clearly we cannot stop use of
> Fox mode if the DX does not use CAT control. Other programs like MSHV
> allow a mode similar
25 matches
Mail list logo
