Hi Bill, On 5/24/2015 2:10 PM, Bill Somerville wrote: > On 24/05/2015 20:29, KI7MT wrote: >> Hi Bill, > Hi Greg, > > ... >>> 3) It turns out that it is easier to adjust the dial frequency to the >>> nearest configured working frequency when changing modes, >> I'm not sure what your meaning here.
> These screen captures may help: > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4192709/mode%20filtered%20working%20frequencies.jpg > > The left is a view of the bottom left corner of the WSJT-X main window > when JT9+JT65 mode is enabled (it would look similar in JT65 mode), the > right is a view of the same when JT9 mode is enabled. As you can see the > working frequencies are different and I am suggesting that when changing > modes the dial frequency can be easily moved to the nearest one > available for the mode selected. So in this case switching between JT65 > and JT9 could automatically switch between 14.076 and 14.078 MHz. Other > arrangements are possible and it is all ultimately controlled by how a > user customizes the frequency list. > > Here is a screen capture of the related working frequencies maintenance > table in setings: > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4192709/mode%20dependent%20frequencies%20maintenance.png > Ok, I understand now, that seems reasonable to me. >> >>> 4) as there can, and will be, separate dial frequencies for JT65A and >>> JT9 on HF; this makes the +2 kHz check box redundant. >> I don't think I've ever used the 2Khz box, but then again, my rig has a >> variable width DSP filter. I would think, those rigs that cannot open >> their filter up past 2.4Khz would not be able to work JT65 and JT9 >> anyway and the 2Khz may be just a quick shift for them. > Yes, but if switching modes change the working frequency then there > would be no need for the +2 kHz check box. Now I understand, if the above is applied, then I would think this is redundant as you say. >> >>> 5) I could leave the dial frequency untouched when changing modes but I >>> can't see a compelling reason not to change it when the target mode has >>> a different working frequency. >> As far as I can tell, there's only a couple bands that share the same >> space with WSPR. As for the shared JT65 v.s. JT9 goes, seem like setting >> the rig for the JT65 frequency seems the most appropriate, but everyone >> operates a bit differently. > OK, so why do you think that the JT65 working frequency is appropriate > for JT9 only operation? I don't necessarily. I suppose it's more a historical / established way of doing things. I could use it either way and be content. I don't see a down side to shifting the frequency on the rig if the mode is JT9 or JT65 only. >> >>> Comments and suggestions? >>> >>> 73 >>> Bill >>> G4WJS. >> 73's >> Greg, KI7MT > 73 > Bill > G4WJS. > 73's Greg, KI7MT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
