LF: JT9-10 vs JT9-5 test results

[N1BUG <paul@n1bug.com>]

Thanks again to everyone who provided reports during my recent JT9
tests. Every report is appreciated, including single mode reports.

Many stations had configuration problems during some part of the
test this time, so there is less data than for previous runs.

Here is the JT9-10 vs JT9-5 report:

http://www.n1bug.com/lfmf/Reports/SlowJT9/3/Report.txt

And here are the results of the JT9-10/5/2/1 test:

http://www.n1bug.com/lfmf/Reports/SlowJT9/4/Report.txt

I would like to do the JT9-10/5/2/1 test again after I repair my
loading coil and make sure the new one is OK, but already I think we
have some clear results.

The older JT9-5 vs JT9-2 test result is here:

http://www.n1bug.com/lfmf/Reports/SlowJT9/2/Report.txt

And the JT9-2 vs JT9-1 results:

http://www.n1bug.com/lfmf/Reports/SlowJT9/1/Report.txt

JT9-2 gives a few dB advantage over JT9-1 and is useful when signals
are a bit too weak for the standard JT9 mode.

JT9-5 has a large advantage over JT9-2 and should be very useful for
LF DX QSOs.

JT9-10 offers improvement over JT9-5. It would take 40 minutes to
complete a standard QSO with JT9-10 so we are at the mercy of QSB.
However, evidence supports that JT9-10 makes a larger portion of the
night useful for DX QSOs compared to JT9-5.

Thanks to Rik for his work on this very nice new tool, SlowJT9.

73,
Paul N1BUG