[RTTY] Information please

Joe Subich, W4TV lists at subich.com
Mon May 29 14:35:02 EDT 2017 

On 5/29/2017 1:36 PM, Don AA5AU wrote:
> 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.

Not in my experience but then I've been running an early version of
WSJT-X 1.7.1 for several months (as a result of trying to debug the
issue among WSJT-X, Commander and the K3 that ended up being resolved
in version 5.56 of the K3 firmware).  WSJT-X 1.7.1 regularly decodes
multiple closely spaced signals (using the two pass algorithm where
the first [strongest] signal is subtracted from the stored wave file
and the file decoded again).

I have WSJT-X 1.7.0, 1.7.1 (r 7557) and JTDX all installed on my
"radio" computer but 1.7.1 is the "go to" program here.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 5/29/2017 1:36 PM, Don AA5AU wrote:
> 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 at zs2ez.co.za>
>   To: rtty at contesting.com
>   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 at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Joe Subich,
> W4TV
> Sent: Sunday, 28 May 2017 4:20 PM
> To: rtty at contesting.com
> 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 at zs2ez.co.za> 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 at contesting.com] On Behalf Of John
>>> Barber
>>> Sent: Saturday, 27 May 2017 6:16 PM
>>> To: 'W4GKM' <w4gkm at citlink.net>; rtty at contesting.com
>>> 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 at contesting.com] On Behalf Of W4GKM
>>> Sent: 27 May 2017 14:58
>>> To: rtty at contesting.com
>>> 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 at outlook.com>
>>>>      To: RTTY Reflector <rtty at contesting.com>
>>>>      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 at contesting.com
>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RTTY mailing list
>>>> RTTY at contesting.com
>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RTTY mailing list
>>> RTTY at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>>> http://www.avg.com
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RTTY mailing list
>>> RTTY at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RTTY mailing list
>>> RTTY at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> 
>     
> 
> |  | Virus-free. www.avg.com  |
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>

More information about the RTTY mailing list