On Thu, Nov 8, 2018, at 13:47, Bill Somerville wrote: > On 08/11/2018 11:36, Mikael Nousiainen wrote: > > So considering these points, I would say that this is_certainly_ not about > > the time offsets or about the quality of the audio received by the browser. > > > > -Mikael > > Hi Mikael, > > I can only suggest you take this up with the pulseaudio developers. A > null sync loopback with no rate conversion should be a trivial buffer > copying exercise and certainly should not be introducing any distortion > apart from maybe a tiny extra bit of latency. > > It may be worth recording the null sync monitor device and looking at > the time domain spectrum in detail around the periods when artefacts are > visible on the WSJT-X waterfall. > > 73 > Bill > G4WJS.
I've contacted PulseAudio developers and with them I was able to confirm that this is indeed an issue in PulseAudio when using a monitor input in certain cases. The audio does get heavily distorted (I was finally able to record it) and that is the reason why WSJT-X is unable to decode the signals. On the other hand, the distortion issue does not occur always and I was able to keep WSJT-X decoding FT8 in the background for several hours without any sync issues. Complete QSOs via bidirectional WebRTC connection to a transceiver (using an IC-7300) work very well also! The software I'm testing is a ham radio remote control server written by me... Thanks for the quick answers! -Mikael _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
