References: <CAHAQVWO7X9AKEtFPnCY+coRQhUGSdSbsdjRnJyof223u1KWSbw@mail.gmail.com> <508D86B7.1030001@princeton.edu> <007e01cdb55b$e823e3d0$6401a8c0@JAYDELL>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <007e01cdb55b$e823e3d0$6401a8c0@JAYDELL>
Message-Id: <67439166-1A40-4DEF-AC3D-7CC7178A4E4E@gmail.com>
Cc: "<rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
From: Roger Lapthorn <rogerlapthorn@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 23:07:47 +0000
To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: LF: JT9 vs.WSPR
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Fully agree with this. A super-WSPR would be a great complement to JT9-x if c=
ombining the 2 is not sensible.=20

73s
Roger G3XBM


On 28 Oct 2012, at 22:30, <jrusgrove@comcast.net> wrote:

>> The question in my mind is the degree to which beacon-like features shoul=
d be mixed with a mode designed for making QSOs.  If beaconing behavior is d=
esired, why not use WSPR?  If it's important to have, say, 10 dB better sens=
itivity than WSPR, then maybe a "slow WSPR" mode should be developed and use=
d, rather than JT9.
>=20
>> -- 73, Joe, K1JT
>=20
>=20
> <2 cents>
>=20
> Joe ... agree with your assessment that JT9 should be kept as a QSO mode p=
rogram and not a combination QSO / beacon mode program. The two sets of requ=
irements are significantly different and trying to make a combination progra=
m may end up being a compromise. WSPR does such a good job for beacon mode a=
nd 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 M=
arcus 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 performan=
ce of WSJT-X JT9 and continue to use the WSPR database that sounds like a go=
od plan. It would really be something if WSPR could decode stations running d=
ifferent speeds simultaneously ... and indicate in the decoded information /=
 database which mode was decoded ... but that may be too much to ask.
>=20
> Jay W1VD  WD2XNS  WE2XGR/2
>=20
> </2 cents>
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ----- 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
>=20
>=20
>> Hi Roger,
>>=20
>>> After about 1 minute or so, the program just closes itself and disappear=
s
>>> from the PC screen.
>>=20
>> Please open a command-prompt window and start the program from there. For=
 example,
>>=20
>> C:\> cd \wsjtx
>> C:\> wsjtx
>>=20
>> When the program dies, send me any error message left in the command-prom=
pt window.
>>=20
>>> I am using a SignalLink VOX controlled sound card interface that I use f=
or
>>> WSPR. Also, when I reload the program I have to reload my callsign, grid=

>>> etc.every time.
>>=20
>> This makes it sound like you may have ignored the installation advice in t=
he Quick-Start Guide: "Under Vista or Windows 7 be sure to install WSJT-X in=
to its own directory (the suggested default is c:\wsjtx) rather than C:\Prog=
ram Files\wsjtx."  Please confirm.
>>=20
>>> 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 no=
t
>>> 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.
>>=20
>> Yes, I understand these points, and beacons have their place.  WSPR would=
 not be there if I did not believe this.
>>=20
>> The question in my mind is the degree to which beacon-like features shoul=
d be mixed with a mode designed for making QSOs.  If beaconing behavior is d=
esired, why not use WSPR?  If it's important to have, say, 10 dB better sens=
itivity than WSPR, then maybe a "slow WSPR" mode should be developed and use=
d, rather than JT9.
>>=20
>> -- 73, Joe, K1JT
>=20
>=20