Message-ID: <007e01cdb55b$e823e3d0$6401a8c0@JAYDELL>
From: <jrusgrove@comcast.net>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <CAHAQVWO7X9AKEtFPnCY+coRQhUGSdSbsdjRnJyof223u1KWSbw@mail.gmail.com> <508D86B7.1030001@princeton.edu>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:30:59 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: LF: JT9 vs.WSPR
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


>The question in my mind is the degree to which beacon-like features should be mixed with a mode 
>designed for making QSOs.  If beaconing behavior is desired, why not use WSPR?  If it's important 
>to have, say, 10 dB better sensitivity than WSPR, then maybe a "slow WSPR" mode should be developed 
>and used, rather than JT9.

>-- 73, Joe, K1JT


<2 cents>

Joe ... agree with your assessment that JT9 should be kept as a QSO mode program and not a 
combination QSO / beacon mode program. The two sets of requirements are significantly different and 
trying to make a combination program may end up being a compromise. WSPR does such a good job for 
beacon mode and the database works so well it may make more sense to develop that further. A number 
of us have been testing 'slow' WSPR modes (thanks to the work of Marcus and Wolf) and the results 
have been impressive ... although the 'proof of concept' arrangement using additional software is 
rather 'clunky'. If it were possible to modify WSPR for several slower speeds, equal the performance 
of WSJT-X JT9 and continue to use the WSPR database that sounds like a good plan. It would really be 
something if WSPR could decode stations running different speeds simultaneously ... and indicate in 
the decoded information / database which mode was decoded ... but that may be too much to ask.

Jay W1VD  WD2XNS  WE2XGR/2

</2 cents>






----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Taylor" <joe@Princeton.EDU>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: LF: JT9 buggy issues


> Hi Roger,
>
>> After about 1 minute or so, the program just closes itself and disappears
>> from the PC screen.
>
> Please open a command-prompt window and start the program from there. For example,
>
> C:\> cd \wsjtx
> C:\> wsjtx
>
> When the program dies, send me any error message left in the command-prompt window.
>
>> I am using a SignalLink VOX controlled sound card interface that I use for
>> WSPR. Also, when I reload the program I have to reload my callsign, grid
>> etc.every time.
>
> This makes it sound like you may have ignored the installation advice in the Quick-Start Guide: 
> "Under Vista or Windows 7 be sure to install WSJT-X into its own directory (the suggested default 
> is c:\wsjtx) rather than C:\Program Files\wsjtx."  Please confirm.
>
>> Although I very much hope to use the mode for QSOs please do not
>> underestimate the value of a weak signal beaconing function with an
>> internet database. This has proved extremely valuable on WSPR as people
>> sometimes leave a RX and PC running to monitor when they are busy and not
>> available for QSOs. There will be far more people able to receive and
>> report than TX on MF/LF. This is especially true on 136kHz.
>
> Yes, I understand these points, and beacons have their place.  WSPR would not be there if I did 
> not believe this.
>
> The question in my mind is the degree to which beacon-like features should be mixed with a mode 
> designed for making QSOs.  If beaconing behavior is desired, why not use WSPR?  If it's important 
> to have, say, 10 dB better sensitivity than WSPR, then maybe a "slow WSPR" mode should be 
> developed and used, rather than JT9.
>
> -- 73, Joe, K1JT
>