Hi Stefan,
Well, the QRN on LF is quite different to that on HF. So probably the
optimised parameter settings (to be found) will be quite different as
well.
Yes. That's why I have encouraged you and others to send me a few
example files of marginal JT9 signals in the presence of significant QRN.
For serious (serious is relative) LF DX, JT9-10 and JT9-30 will be
preferred, also in contrast to HF.
Maybe yes, maybe no. If typically there is significant QSB over 10 or
30 minutes, it may be better to use shorter transmissions and allow the
decoder to average several of them. (This capability is not yet present
in the JT9 decoder, but it works very well in JT65.)
Transmissions of 10 or 30 minutes are fine for beacon work, but are
extremely tedious for most QSO purposes.
PS: Another idea: If there are some RX stations who like to do some
tests, we could try to run 2 instances of WSJT-X, one with and one
without the NB. Maybe it requires to install the program twice, in
separate folders
A much better course of action is to make recordings from which NB
optimizations can be made. I make no special claims for the present
noise blanker, beyond the fact that it does (at some level) work.
-- 73, Joe, K1JT
|
