locked C'mon guys, go JT9!
|
Gus Kegelaers
Hello gentlemen,
watching PSKReporter at start up time and again reveals that the # JT65 stations far outweigh the # JT9 stations. JT65 and JT9 being developed by Joe K1JT JT9 offers: - a far smaller bandwidth than JT65 (i.e. more room to operate and far less QRM) - a 2% better sensitivity than JT65 (2 dB in the mid 20 dB range is huge). Knowing that most of us operate WSJT-X means we can operate JT65 and JT9, tell me what keeps almost everyone away from JT9? The answer is not enough stations and not enough DX variety. Quite understandable if everybody for the above 2 reasons keeps messing about with JT65. Why don't you start letting go of JT65? If we all do in a reasonably short time (several month) we will all of us benefit from it. JT9 in the technical arena is the better mode. 73, good DX Gust ON6KE
|
|
|
|
Brian D <brian13434@...>
"gus.kegelaers@... [HamApps]" <HamApps@...> wrote:
Knowing that most of us operate WSJT-X means we can operate JT65 and JT9,Two things I've noticed (well almost the same) as well as the lack of activity. 1: Higher frequency stability required (when I changed rigs a year or so ago I started losing decodes of JT9 on the higher bands, due to slight jumps in frequency as the TXCO corrected. 2: Variations in timing/frequency due to ionospheric effects. I often try CQs on JT9 and there seem to be far less RXs on PSKR. With the latest WSJT-X to JT65 decoding improvements I'm often decoding stations at lower levels and often simultaneous decodes on the same frequency (usually slightly different on timing) so with JT65 I think more stations can be interleaved than would seem possible from the bandwidth requirements so the advantage of JT9 may be less than the bandwidth diference implies. -- Brian Duffell G3VGZ G8AOE Yarm on Tees England
|
|
|
|
Mark Gierhart
Sheeh Gus . It's our secret 😏 Mark Gierhart (W8MDG) Engineering / IT Childers Media Group Lima , Ohio Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2016, at 6:53 AM, gus.kegelaers@... [HamApps] <HamApps@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Dan Malcolm <dmalcolm24@...>
I do use JT9. I have my waterfall set up to show both JT65 and JT9. I normally try to respond to CQ’s but in those instances where that is not productive, I will call CQ using JT9. Since most of us use small amounts of power compared to SSB voice, JT9’s increased sensitivity is a real benefit.
_____________________________ Dan Malcolm CFI/II K4SHQ
From: HamApps@... [mailto:HamApps@...]
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 5:53 AM To: HamApps@... Subject: [HamApps] C'mon guys, go JT9!
Hello gentlemen,
|
|
|
|
Robin
Brian, you are indeed correct, from my experience also.
This is really off-subject of HamApps, but on many occasions an apparantly (waterfall view) good JT9 just will not decode. JT9 may occupy less bandwidth than JT65 and when eventually decoded show lower S/N ratios. This decode anomaly can be very frustrating.
Overlapping JT9 signals seem to be impossible to decode. The original JT65-HF, by W6CQZ, was exceptionally good at unscrambling JT65 overlapping (in frequency) signals, but took its time to compute decodes. My experience shows that the recent variants, while decoding faster, seem less proficient at handling overlapping signals.
I did start experimenting JT-65HF with overlapping (in time) signals, for better usage of the available spectrum. Although promising as research, for general operational usage this looks like a non-starter. I do operate mostly JT9, but generally that is to avoid the JT65 overload 2kHz down.
Robin, 9H1ZZ
From: HamApps@... on behalf of Brian D brian13434@... [HamApps]
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 1:44 PM To: HamApps@... Subject: Re: [HamApps] C'mon guys, go JT9! "gus.kegelaers@... [HamApps]" wrote:
|
|
|
|
'DGB' <ns9i2016@...>
Agreed Gus ... now if we could get those that come back from a CQ with a R- type report, life wud be easier. Double click on one of those and u go into the RRR mode - fortunately WSJT-X let's you change it back over to a report on the fly before things really get out of sequence. Why are so many doing that ... are they just not looking at the screen? 73 Dwight NS9I
On 8/28/2016 5:53 AM,
gus.kegelaers@... [HamApps] wrote:
|
|
|
|
Ed Wilson
Dwight, My guess is that those guys who send an R report after a CQ do not understand that R should mean that they have received your report ok. I think that they just believe that R means that they acknowledge your call. This is getting a bit off-topic for HamApps, however! Ed, K0KC k0kc@... http://k0kc.us/
From: "'DGB' ns9i2016@... [HamApps]" To: HamApps@... Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 10:21 AM Subject: Re: [HamApps] C'mon guys, go JT9! Agreed Gus ... now if we could get those that
come back from a CQ with a R- type report, life wud be easier.
Double click on one of those and u go into the RRR mode -
fortunately WSJT-X let's you change it back over to a report on
the fly before things really get out of sequence.
Why are so many doing that ... are they just not
looking at the screen?
73 Dwight NS9I
On 8/28/2016 5:53 AM,
gus.kegelaers@... [HamApps] wrote:
|
|
|
|
Dan Malcolm <dmalcolm24@...>
Agree that this should not be on the HamApps forum. Perhaps a switch to the WSJTX forum is in order.
_____________________________ Dan Malcolm CFI/II K4SHQ
From: HamApps@... [mailto:HamApps@...]
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 10:00 AM To: HamApps@... Subject: Re: [HamApps] C'mon guys, go JT9!
Dwight,
My guess is that those guys who send an R report after a CQ do not understand that R should mean that they have received your report ok. I think that they just believe that R means that they acknowledge your call.
This is getting a bit off-topic for HamApps, however!
From: "'DGB' ns9i2016@... [HamApps]" <HamApps@...>
Agreed Gus ... now if we could get those that come back from a CQ with a R- type report, life wud be easier. Double click on one of those and u go into the RRR mode - fortunately WSJT-X let's you change it back over to a report on the fly before things really get out of sequence. Why are so many doing that ... are they just not looking at the screen? 73 Dwight NS9I
On 8/28/2016 5:53 AM, gus.kegelaers@... [HamApps] wrote:
|
|
|
|
WB4CIW@...
Hi All,
I started out on JT-65 when the first article came out about it in
QST. After a good
head start JT-9 came out. By then I was so far into my quest for WAS and
WAC, Grids,
etc, I determined to accomplish it all on JT-65 and then switch. That
coupled with the
near constant problems that arise when a new version of JT Alert is put
out, I've held off.
Running the Comfort version of HF I've never had a single problem
uploading and installing
a new version of Alert.
Now, with 9,773 completed contacts, I have 8 band WAS and WAC,
and very nearly
1000 grids, I lack three states and three continents on 160 for the
9th band.
So many of us are using JT-Alert, have set up the "Wanted" States and DX
for audio
alerts, and then sit & read, watch TV, work at the bench, just waiting
for that alert to sound..
Mean while I keep waiting for those three states to stop listening, and
start transmitting so
I can nab them.
I love the JT mode, took to it like a duck to water.
73, Frank/wb4ciw
In a message dated 28-Aug-16 4:53:16 Mountain Daylight Time,
HamApps@... writes:
|
|
|
|
Buddy Ashley
Biggest problem with JT-9 is that many
run TOO MUCH power! I also have noticed hams seem to have reverted to
"high power" JT-65, ie 60+ watts. I have earned WAS with both JT-65 and JT-9 and confirmed all QSO's via LoTW. Like WB4CIW, I am after 160m and also 6m WAS. 73 Buddy WB4M
|
|
|
|
Michael Black
Using my LOTWQSL program (see my QRZ page) here's what my JT65/JT9 WAS status looks like. Totaling up you can see 467 states for JT65 and 408 for JT9. And haven't seen DC yet on JT9. Many more stations are on JT65 at least partly due to JT65HF not doing JT9. de Mike W9MDB
|
|
|
|
Robert Lorenzini
Frank I don't wait. If I see something wanted and listening only I
will give them
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
a call anyway. Once in a while it works. Not that you need advice judging from your totals. Bob - wd6dod
On 8/28/2016 10:46 AM, WB4CIW@...
[HamApps] wrote:
|
|
|
|
Robert Lorenzini
Yes Mike but you're on the air 24/7/365 :-). I consider your program
essential
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
for working /tracking states.
On 8/28/2016 11:20 AM, Black Michael
mdblack98@... [HamApps] wrote:
|
|
|
|
Dan Malcolm <dmalcolm24@...>
Agree with Buddy. My normal power is 10W. For a very few DX contacts I will bump up to 50W but no more. 10W is it 99% of time. The power just isn’t needed. I’ve worked Australia on 10W even in these declining propagation years.
_____________________________ Dan Malcolm CFI/II K4SHQ
From: HamApps@... [mailto:HamApps@...]
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 1:00 PM To: HamApps@... Subject: Re: [HamApps] C'mon guys, go JT9!
Biggest problem with JT-9 is that many run TOO MUCH power! I also have noticed hams seem to have reverted to "high power" JT-65, ie 60+ watts.
|
|
|
|
I used to use JT9 all the time. Like every day.
Then one day I realized that when the K3 went to transmit, the SignaLink-USB Xmit lite came on; the K3 TX LED came on, there was monitor-tone from the K3, yet could never get RF output .... no audio-tone was reaching the K3 went she went to xmit. If I unchecked "Split" in any of the versions of WSJTx that I tried, then all went well ....except for the fact that there was little if any output way up at 3000-offset due to the obvious reasons. So now, I am trying the "Devel" versions and the problem is still there. If I could find a storage place for all previous versions of WSJTx then I might try to find the breaking-point, for my setup anyway. Over time I have posted the problem and sought answers. Though many have answered, I still can't have the WSJTx program use the 'split' function on K3 and actually drive the K3 as wsjtx once did for a couple years ... daily. I've tried VOX and PTT ... without Split on, the rig drives either way and works fine ... everyday ... despite some who tell me that this or that way wont work. Teach me how to set WSJTx up, and work the K3, and I will gladly use JT9 as much as I used to. -- 73, Bob KD7YZ www.qrz.com/db/kd7yz AmSat LM#901
|
|
|
|
Michael Black
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
From: "Bob KD7YZ kd7yz@... [HamApps]" To: HamApps@... Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 3:29 AM Subject: Re: [HamApps] C'mon guys, go JT9! I used to use JT9 all the time. Like every day.
Then one day I realized that when the K3 went to transmit, the SignaLink-USB Xmit lite came on; the K3 TX LED came on, there was monitor-tone from the K3, yet could never get RF output .... no audio-tone was reaching the K3 went she went to xmit. If I unchecked "Split" in any of the versions of WSJTx that I tried, then all went well ....except for the fact that there was little if any output way up at 3000-offset due to the obvious reasons. So now, I am trying the "Devel" versions and the problem is still there. If I could find a storage place for all previous versions of WSJTx then I might try to find the breaking-point, for my setup anyway. Over time I have posted the problem and sought answers. Though many have answered, I still can't have the WSJTx program use the 'split' function on K3 and actually drive the K3 as wsjtx once did for a couple years ... daily. I've tried VOX and PTT ... without Split on, the rig drives either way and works fine ... everyday ... despite some who tell me that this or that way wont work. Teach me how to set WSJTx up, and work the K3, and I will gladly use JT9 as much as I used to. -- 73, Bob KD7YZ www.qrz.com/db/kd7yz AmSat LM#901
|
|
|
|
On 31-Aug-16 0900, Black Michael mdblack98@... [HamApps] wrote:
nice try. I replied FROM the hamapps group distributed email.
|
|
|