Everyone Waterfall bake-off: WSJT v10 vs. WSJT-X : WSJT v10. Nice waterfall with great detail. Six months ago, I would have joined the suggestion to “keep the old WSJT v10 waterfall”
Why I currently favor WSJT-X waterfall: The precise frequency (DF) of target weak EME signal is usually not known until 1st visible waterfall trace appears. WSJT-X sometimes (with aggressive settings) decodes JT-65A and/or Q65-60A signals that are barely or invisible on the waterfall. (WSJT v10 would only decode when I could detect some faint paint-splashes on the waterfall). I realize the Waterfall gain, sensitivity, zero, etc. settings have everything to do with when signal is visible vs. when it decodes. WSJT-X has the new Q65_Sync (fish-finder) (bottom of waterfall) that helps locate signals barely visible to the eye. This is incredibly valuable because oft-times when running a sked with a new DX station, his DF (radio frequency) remains unknown relative to mine (Doppler shift and all else factored in). Scratching, scraping, digging for every 0.1dB more to bring that SNR to something usable is primary goal on 6m EME. I still use my old legacy JT-65A receive computers (one on Windows XP, another on Fedora core 30, and a third on Debian 10) but soon (with Q65), the XP PC will become officially obsolete (the hardware is insufficient to support current software) and the others will be changed from WSJT v11 to WSJT-X v2.4.0. Also, WSJT-X decodes multiple signals within the passband so WSJT-X replaces both WSJT v10 and MAP65 in a single software package. 73, Dave KJ9I
_______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
