On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 11:34:51AM +, Bill Somerville wrote:
> where I say non-standard I mean within the constraints of the digital source
> encoding used by the various modes in the WSJT suite of software. That does
> not exactly align with all callsigns issued around the World, to do so wo
Hello Joe, Trevor,
my 2 cents:
There is for sure an interest for such a mode in the 472kHz and 136kHz
communities.
In november 2018 I designed an application that "revived" the slower JT9 modes
(JT9-2, JT9-5, JT9-10). Basicaly it just resamples the audio by 9/20 (for
JT9-2), 27/160 (for JT9/5)
Hi Trevor,
On 2/23/2020 07:34, Trevor Smithers G0KTN wrote:
Back last August/September there was a brief post about a new
WSJT mode in the early stages of development by K1JT and K9AN designed
specifically for 136kHz, 472KHz and 160.
I thought it was to be based on JT65 (but it might have been
This was asked over on the main WSJT mailing list just recently, there may be
more details on that thread.
https://groups.io/g/WSJTX/message/6596
--
73’s
Tom
GM8MJV (IO85)
On 23 Feb 2020, at 12:35, Trevor Smithers wrote:
> Back last August/September there was a brief post about a new
> W
Back last August/September there was a brief post about a new
WSJT mode in the early stages of development by K1JT and K9AN designed
specifically for 136kHz, 472KHz and 160.
I thought it was to be based on JT65 (but it might have been JT9) and was
hoped to be far more sensitive at the designated f
Hi Bill, Ted, Ria, Mike, and others,
Thanks a lot for your answers. I’ve forwarded your advice to that OM. He was
not yet aware of these possible causes, and he is very grateful for your help!
73 de Uwe, DG2YCB
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@l
