Ok, what is the truth here? Is JT9 better than JT65 on 160m, or is it
inferior?????
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Brian D G3VGZ <topband@planet3.freeuk.co.uk
> wrote:
> ... I find the better ability for JT65 to decode co-channel signals with
> its two pass decoding makes up for any 2dB improvement in decoding JT9. I
> also find a single static crash can take out JT9 decodes, more so than JT65.
>
That certainly got my attention! Has anyone else experienced this? *And if
so, what filter were you using: the wide SSB filter or a narrower CW
filter?? *I'm inclined to think that JT9 is superior to JT65 on 160m.
*But I have an open mind.*
I'm cc'ing this to K1JT himself, the Top Band Digital 160m Yahoo Group, and
the Topband reflector.
* Please share your experiences.*
*TIA.*
73, Mike
www.w0btu.com
> On 5/13/2017 3:27 PM, Mike Waters wrote:
> Why not JT9? It has a 2 dB improvement in S/N ratio on 160, while using
> only 1/10 of the bandwidth.
> I cannot understand why JT9 is used so little on 160 thru 20. JT65 is a
> VHF mode.
> physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx.html
> [snip]
>
> --
> Brian D
> G3VGZ
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|