Hi Joe
The signals were good on the waterfall with me. I did not save any of the
data since I was just experimenting.
of course the problem could have been at the TX end.
Any data modes that I have looked at before are always good signals with me
because of my antenna system but they likewise do not always decode, whereas
had they been on CW or QRSS I could easily have identified them. Others have
made the same observations for all data modes and it remains unexplained.
I have never needed to try to decode signals at the levels of strength
claimed(very weak) because I have large antennas and signals are always
strong from those that indicate that they are active on LF/MF.
I am discounting one or two operators that are so QRP that they do not
radiate beyond their back yard so I do not look out for them.
I appreciate your effort but so far I have managed very well over the years
on CW and QRSS at the faster speeds ie QRSS 3 - 20
I do not have a TX converter for data modes otherwise I would try QSO mode
but not interested in Beacons.
73 es GL de Mal/G3KEV
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Taylor" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: LF: Re: wsjtx
> Hi Mal and all,
>
> G3KEV wrote:
> > Still no decode on 501.5 Khz but good waterfall display. Pity it
> > was not CW or QRSS then I could get an ID
>
> JT9 signals should decode at signal levels well below what you can copy
> on CW or QRSS -- and with much larger information content.
>
> If you believe you have examples of JT9 receptions that "should" have
> decoded, but did not, please send me the *.wav files. (You must have
> checked "Save All" on the WSJT-X "Save" menu.)
>
> -- 73, Joe, K1JT
>
|
