ent can be tricky.Ed N4II.
Original message From: Paul Kube Date:
7/29/19 3:31 PM (GMT-05:00) To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 Frequency on
40-m TOK, thanks Steve. If I get inspired maybe I'll fire up ft8sim and ft4sim
and run some experiments.73, Paul K6
TOK, thanks Steve. If I get inspired maybe I'll fire up ft8sim and ft4sim
and run some experiments.
73, Paul K6PO
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 9:35 AM Steven Franke via wsjt-devel <
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> I don’t know the answer to your question(s).
>
> In addition to fr
Hi All:
Just a reflection about FT4 and FT8, sensitivity and cycle times. From my
experience, FT4, is less sensitive than FT8. Please note my QTH is in
Caribbean far distant than stations in the mainland. My opinion is that IF
FT4 could be improved (maybe a v2 of the mode) regarding sensitivity
Paul,
I don’t know the answer to your question(s).
In addition to frequency separation and signal strength difference, one would
have to consider overall signal strength (not just difference), the DT
difference between the two signals, and the delay and Doppler spread on each of
the two channe
Steve --
Related to this, and to another recent thread on replying to CQ's on the
caller's frequency:
What is the decoding probability a FT8 (or FT4) signal when being
interfered with by another FT8 (or FT4) signal, as a function of frequency
separation and signal strength difference? Seems clear
Hi Steve,
I didn’t calculate everything - and thank you for doing “my work” for me. ;)
In the real world, we need more empirical data to support my thought = FT8 is
superior for weak signal/DX/“valuable” contacts (and, of course, “value” is
purely subjective). We know is “better” qualitative
Re: Roy Gould 2019-07-27
> It does not seem to me that there is any reason that FT4 and FT8 cannot
> operate together in the same channel. If this is so, then why have separate
> channels for them?
FT8 is quite good at decoding even overlapping signals in parallel.
However, from my experience, w
Hi All:
My experience from the Caribbean for example 6M no FT4 QSO so far. Tried
80m and similar experience, although I can hear some stations. No QSO.
For users working the magic bad, at distant locations FT4 is out the scene
unless conditions are excellent. Just my experience, However, will
Hi Gene,
> FT8 is WAY MORE sensitive! (~8db)
That number is not right. On the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel,
the 50% decode probability of FT8 occurs at SNR=-20.8 dB and the 50% decode
probability of FT4 occurs at SNR=-17.5 dB. The sensitivity difference is
therefore 3.3 dB.
No!
FT8 is WAY MORE sensitive! (~8db)
FT4 is awesome for MORE contacts (i.e. contests).
I’m sticking with FT8 for QUALITY.
73 de W8NET Miles / “Gene”
Secretary, Portage County Amateur Radio Service (PCARS)
3905 Century Club - Master #47
DV2/W8NET in the Philippines
Licensed since 1974
> On Ju
On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 15:47:17 -0600
Roy Gould wrote:
> I have been using FT4 since the release of 2.1.0 and find that I like it a
> lot better than FT8. It is twice as fast and features such as Best S+P are
> great. I have abandoned FT8 in favor of FT4. I anticipate that others will
> come to
Gentlemen:
Bandwidth and weak signal performance are important considerations when
comparing the relative merits of FT8 and FT4. Perhaps an even more
important consideration is which of these is the most fun to operate.
I have been using FT4 since the release of 2.1.0 and find that I like it a
lo
12 matches
Mail list logo
