My experience with JTDX is similar to Barry's. JTDX seems to decode just about
every signal seen in the waterfall. I've been using JTDX exclusively now for
over six months. I went back to WSJT-x this weekend to try MSK144. When 6
meters opened with E skip, I switched to JT65 and to my dismay WSJT-x would
only decode half the signals showing in the waterfall. I then switched to JTDX
and it decoded nearly all the signals.
I went back to WSJT-x, defaulted it and tried to get it set up for better
decoding but it was never satisfactory to me. What amazes me most about JTDX is
that is can decode weak signals that are under stronger signals (WSJT-x will
not do this) and it can decode as many as 3 signals on the exact same
frequency. One complaint about WSJT-X on JT65 is that it will not decode more
than one signal on the same frequency. If there are two (or more) signals on
the same frequency, WSJT-x will not decode any of them. If a weak signal gets
covered up, WSJT-x will not decode it. JTDX will in most cases.
On a very crowded 20 meter band, I've seen JTDX decode more than 24 signals in
a single pass. WSJT-x can't come close to this. The notion that JTDX has more
errors doesn't hold water. Rarely do I ever see errors with JTDX. I saw one
yesterday and it surprised me because I hadn't seen one in a long time.
One positive WSJT-x has over JTDX might be JT9. The enhancements in JTDX are
only for JT65. WSJT-x seems to better with JT9.
Don AA5AU
From: Barry Murrell ZS2EZ <zs2ez@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: rtty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2017 2:38 AM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Information please
Joe, my experiences with JTDX versus WSJT-X (particularly on 80m where I
have been active recently) are very different.... although I can only
compare to WSJT-X 1.7, as this is the only AVAILABLE version - I have not
compiled software since Pascal 7 in the 80's, and do not have the time,
knowledge or inclination to stumble around trying to "roll my own"
version... this is why I steer clear of Linux too, WHY the developers of a
program cannot simply provide an installer to test with (like Igor does with
JTDX and Dave W1HKJ does with FLDigi) I will never understand. As far as I
am concerned, WSJT-X 1.7.1 etc is NOT available to the general Amateur
community....
As far as JTDX is concerned : The Hint function is optional (but works
extremely well), I have found only an EXTREMELY occasional "False Decode"
(which the software flags as Questionable) and the number of decoding passes
are also configurable.
In direct comparison to WSJT-X 1.7, I have found JTDX to be far superior in
decoding of weak signals (regularly completing QSOs with signals of -26, -28
and even -30!), massively better at handling overlapping signals, and it's
Filter feature is AMAZING!
Your mileage may vary, but these are my observations from operating.... as
stated, I have no idea what the UNRELEASED WSJT-X can do, but up against the
RELEASED version JTDX is FAR better!!!
Of course, these observations are from the bottom end of Africa where there
are generally only about 4 or 5 "local" stations on the air at any time -
may be very different when the band is very crowded....
73 de BARRY MURRELL ZS2EZ
KF26ta - Port Elizabeth, South Africa
EPC#0558 DMC#1690 WCC#030 30MDG#4081
DXCC(mixed)#41,146 DXCC(RTTY)#1,916
DXCC(phone)#34,990 DXCC(CW)#11,714
DXCC 40m,30m,20m,17m,15m,12m,10m
WAS Triple Play #492 WAS(RTTY)#538 WAZ(RTTY)#185 WAE-I(mixed)#72
WAZS(mixed)#214 AAA#1569
AS ZR6DXB: VUCC(50MHZ)#1,334 UKSMG WAE(Silver)#75 UKSMG AFRICA#22 WAC
(Satellite)
website : www.zs2ez.co.za
-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joe Subich,
W4TV
Sent: Sunday, 28 May 2017 4:20 PM
To: rtty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Information please
On 5/28/2017 9:04 AM, Ed Muns wrote:
> +1 for JTDX. The advantages are all on JT65 for HF, not JT9, though.
The issues with JTDX are: 1) the use of "hinted decoding" which uses a list
of known calls and will find them even if they are not present!
2) overly aggressive decoding which produces a very high level of "false"
decodes, 3) lack of "two pass" decoding which "nulls out" a stronger signal
and decodes weaker signals on (nearly) the same frequency.
WSJT-X (particularly in the development branch) is clearly superior to JTDX
and has the advantage of Joe Taylor's direct involvement.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 5/28/2017 9:04 AM, Ed Muns wrote:
> +1 for JTDX. The advantages are all on JT65 for HF, not JT9, though.
>
> 73,
> Ed W0YK
> On May 28, 2017 3:05 AM, Barry Murrell ZS2EZ <zs2ez@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> John, you may want to try JTDX, a derivative of WSJT-X optimised
>> exclusively for HF by UA3DJY.
>> Unlike WSJT-X (which unless you are prepared to compile your own
>> version is updated VERY infrequently - last release version is 1.7.0,
>> while the "Developer" team talk about 1.7.1 with major improvements
>> which are not generally available) JTDX is constantly updated and
>> includes it's own mode
>> (JT10) which is becoming quite popular.
>>
>> I find that JTDX is considerably more sensitive on receive (hearing a
>> number of weak stations much better than WSJT-X) and have regularly
>> managed QSOs at around -28 and -30!!!
>>
>> The latest JTDX can be downloaded at :
>> https://cloud.mail.ru/public/N4qQ/7RrTSrusu and more info can be
>> found at http://www.qrz.lt/ly3bg/JTDX/jtdx1.html
>> It works with JTAlert too!!
>>
>> Well worth trying!!
>>
>> 73 de BARRY MURRELL ZS2EZ
>> KF26ta - Port Elizabeth, South Africa
>> EPC#0558 DMC#1690 WCC#030 30MDG#4081
>> DXCC(mixed)#41,146 DXCC(RTTY)#1,916
>> DXCC(phone)#34,990 DXCC(CW)#11,714
>> DXCC 40m,30m,20m,17m,15m,12m,10m
>> WAS Triple Play #492 WAS(RTTY)#538 WAZ(RTTY)#185 WAE-I(mixed)#72
>> WAZS(mixed)#214 AAA#1569
>> AS ZR6DXB: VUCC(50MHZ)#1,334 UKSMG WAE(Silver)#75 UKSMG AFRICA#22
>> WAC
>> (Satellite)
>> website : www.zs2ez.co.za
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John
>> Barber
>> Sent: Saturday, 27 May 2017 6:16 PM
>> To: 'W4GKM' <w4gkm@xxxxxxxxxxx>; rtty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Information please
>>
>> If you are already set up for another data mode, using AFSK, it's
>> simple. I started by downloading JT65-HF, set it up and watched the
>> results. On most HF bands the radio is set to .076 dial frequency.
>> JT65-HF was disappointing in the user interface and facilities, so I
>> tried the JT65-HF HB9HQX-Edition improved version, which has been
excellent.
>> John GW4SKA
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of W4GKM
>> Sent: 27 May 2017 14:58
>> To: rtty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Information please
>>
>> I have never tried these modes, but I would like to, where do I start.
>>
>> Nick
>> W4GKM
>>
>>
>> On 5/26/2017 9:37 AM, Don AA5AU wrote:
>>> JT65 and JT9 and excellent modes. I have over 144 entities worked on
>>> JT65
>> alone and have worked all states on 10-80 meters (need only DE & RI
>> on 160 and AK, HI & ME on 6 meters.
>>> Last night I worked two Japanese stations on 6 meter JT65 running 80
>>> watts
>> to a 4-element yagi (3 element SteppIR with passive element added)
>> and this morning JH0INP confirmed our QSO via LotW. There's lots of
>> activity on 6 meter JT65 in the summer.
>>> I really like JT modes on 160 meters because I seem to be able to
>>> work new
>> ones I can't hear on CW. I highly recommend JT65 & JT9.
>>> Don AA5AU
>>>
>>> From: Bill Turner <dezrat@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> To: RTTY Reflector <rtty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 9:11 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Information please
>>>
>>> ------------ ORIGINAL MESSAGE ------------(may be snipped)
>>>
>>> On Fri, 26 May 2017 09:20:25 +0100, you wrote:
>>>
>>>> You could think about using the other data modes. With low power
>>>> and poor propagation, PSK can work a lot better than RTTY.
>>>> The ultimate move across to the dark side is JT65. I started using
>>>> JT65 about 10 days ago and have 60+ countries in the log, operating
>>>> just a couple of hours a day.
>>>> Very low power is all you need, but it's a horrible slow process
>>>> with no skill required. My only motivation is to get to 100 DXCC
>>>> then back to
>> RTTY!
>>>> John GW4SKA
>>> REPLY:
>>>
>>> Even better than JT65 is JT9. A fraction of the bandwidth and
>>> according to the author, about 2 dB better with weak signals. The
>>> protocol is the same. Give it a try, you'll like it.
>>>
>>> 73, Bill W6WRT
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RTTY mailing list
>>> RTTY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RTTY mailing list
>>> RTTY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>> http://www.avg.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
| | Virus-free. www.avg.com |
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|