On 8/27/21 16:20, Stan Gammons via wsjt-devel wrote:
Band planning is good idea. I've failed to understand why a given
segment of the bands were agreed on for JT65, JT9, FT4, FT8 and so
forth. Seems better to operate with any of those mode on any part of the
RTTY and data segments of the bands. Maybe the idea to use a given
frequency for each mode was because ops may not recognize what mode it
is based on the sound and how it looks in the waterfall? I'm not
condemning the decision on selecting a given frequency for a given JT
mode. Cycle 25 is picking up, but it's getting really crowded on many
of the FT8 frequencies. Personally; I'm looking forward to prop
improving and jumping into a huge SSB pileup for one of the most wanted
DXCC entities. Like Bouvet Island :)
I think the reason is already pretty clear: by grouping all FT8 signals
(say) into a narrow band segment it becomes easy for the receiver to
decode everything within that segment, and this enables the kind of
thing I'm talking about.
If we all had full-blown wideband SDRs (rather than voice-band
transceivers adapted to the purpose) then it would be possible to decode
every FT8 (or whatever) signal in an entire amateur band, or perhaps in
several amateur bands, and band segment planning wouldn't be as useful.
You'll spend more CPU time searching a larger space for these signals.
But that becomes less important as time goes by, CPU core counts
increase and algorithms improve.
Phil
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
