Dave - The current release of JS8Call (v. 2.2.0) bears little resemblance to versions a year or more back. I think the many changes since then have made it much less "rigid" and much more useful.
In addition to plain old everyday ragchewing for example, it has the capability to auto-relay messages, store and forward messages, send to designated groups, interface with APRS and SMS messaging, etc. All functions that are not even remotely possible with FT8 or CW, for that matter. And do so at multiple speed levels that extend up into the 20+ wpm realm. All this can be done normally at very low power levels. 73 Lyn, W0LEN -----Original Message----- From: David Gilbert [mailto:ab7e...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2020 8:57 PM To: l...@lnainc.com; elecraft@mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] FT8 - was "On Second Thought, I'll Take The Stairs" Not quite. I'm aware of JS8 and tried it more than a year ago, but it still has much of the rigidity of the WSJT-X user interface and isn't as basic as I think would be desirable. Think of it this way ... CW works fine as both a contest mode, DXing mode, and conversational mode. Underlaying CW with a well configured digital signal processing scheme like that which is under FT8, except with a different user interface than either WSJT-X or JS8, could be equally versatile but with maybe 6-8 db better S/N ... possibly by an even greater margin if the decoding allowed errors instead of being all or nothing. I'm not saying text-to-CW is the only way to reap the benefit of modern digital signal processing ... only using it as an example. People only interested in a contact will probably always prefer WSJT-X/FT8 because it does that very well, but both contesting and rag chewing could really use a different (simpler) structure while still utilizing the superior weak signal peformance of modern digital signal processing. I guarantee that it is possible to do so. 73, Dave AB7E On 7/12/2020 6:18 PM, Lyn Norstad wrote: > Enter JS8Call. > > All the technology of FT8, plus all of the conversationality of CW, RTTY and > SSB rolled into one. > > If you haven't tried it, you really should. It's developer, Jordan Sherer > (KN4CRD) has done a terrific job with it and I am honored to have been a part > of the beta team almost since day one. > > http://js8call.com/ > > 73 > Lyn, W0LEN > > > -----Original Message----- > From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net > [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of David Gilbert > Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2020 7:40 PM > To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net > Subject: [Elecraft] FT8 - was "On Second Thought, I'll Take The Stairs" > > > Well, the fact is that the coding and processing behind modes like FT8 > doesn't have to be as rigid as is implemented in WSJT-X. It only > requires that information be sent and received in time frames, and those > time frames are simply a function of three variables ... bandwidth, > rate, and number of characters in the message frame. It would be > possible to change any of those, such as widening the bandwidth to > increase the number of characters for the same time frame. > > It would also be possible to send text but have it converted to CW on > the other end. Or even to key CW that gets converted to text before > transmission ... i.e., CW to CW except with significantly better S/N > performance. If the user was willing to live with a narrow bandwidth > single conversation format, clock synchronization isn't even really > needed. And if we were willing to live with a single conversation > format, there would be no point in cramming everyone into 2.4 KHz and we > could spread out like we do for every other mode. > > I'm no expert, but I think that the coding could have enough error > checking to allow busted message frames to be printed (or converted to > CW) ... although of course with errors. The extra error processing > would reduce the character count, though, all other things being equal. > > The point is that the digital signal processing behind FT8 is extremely > powerful and could be adapted to other user formats with a lot more > flexibility than we have with FT8. The hams who just dismiss FT8 out of > hand really don't understand the broader weak signal applicability of it. > > 73, > Dave AB7E > > > > On 7/12/2020 4:53 PM, Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT wrote: >> Yeah, great, reliable at or below the noise floor, but if all you're >> doing is meeting the somewhat arbitrary minimum that defines a QSO, >> what's the point? >> >> I mean seriously, can you even ask about the weather? Just say "hi?" >> >> Meh. >> >> I'm fine with typing, but I want a real live person typing back, and >> if we can type back and forth for an hour, that's great. >> >> 73 -- Lynn >> >> On 7/12/20 2:33 PM, Wayne Burdick wrote: >>> The argument for digital modes like FT8 is that they're reliable at >>> or below the noise floor, making it possible to work lots of DX even >>> if solar conditions are very poor. Simplicity of protocol is a side >>> effect of this design. >> _________________ ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
