Thanks.
Jim
On 2/3/2021 4:54 AM, Steven Franke via wsjt-devel wrote:
Next thought. I called CQ for quite a while set for FST4-60. No responses, but
a guy near Phoenix (I'm near SF) posted me to PSKReporter, probably unattended.
My question is with respect to decoding, if I set up for
Would 1838 not be a better choice, there's not much JT65 or JT9 these days
and FST4 replaces them.
Jim Brown wrote:
> Makes sense. More questions, which came up first time I tried to use FST4
> on 160M, set up at 1839 kHz dial, 1050 Hz offset (I have a trash intermod
> carrier at 1840). If I
>
> Next thought. I called CQ for quite a while set for FST4-60. No responses,
> but a guy near Phoenix (I'm near SF) posted me to PSKReporter, probably
> unattended. My question is with respect to decoding, if I set up for FST4-60,
> would I also decode shorter period FST (and vice versa)?
On 2/2/2021 3:48 PM, Steven Franke via wsjt-devel wrote:
Increasing or decreasing the width of the search window will increase/decrease
the number of spurious candidates, so a larger search window means longer total
decoding time and higher false decode rate. That’s why we advise users to
> On Feb 2, 2021, at 4:56 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
>
> With FST4, is there an advantage to using narrower decode bandwidth and/or
> narrower frequency tolerance?
>
> Jim K9YC
Jim,
The GUI controls (FTol for FST4W and FLow/FHigh for FST4) determine the upper
and lower limits of the candidate
On 2/2/2021 3:18 PM, Bill Somerville wrote:
if you mean a narrower waterfall/spectrum bandwidth for the former, then
that doesn't make much difference. As always it is best to match your
receiver's bandwidth.
I was thinking of when the single decode is not checked.
The frequency tolerance
On 02/02/2021 22:56, Jim Brown wrote:
With FST4, is there an advantage to using narrower decode bandwidth
and/or narrower frequency tolerance?
Jim K9YC
Hi Jim,
if you mean a narrower waterfall/spectrum bandwidth for the former, then
that doesn't make much difference. As always it is best
