Hi Guy,
note that the information in that document is quite old and things have
moved on a bit. I believe the basic encoding is still the same but some
of the implementation details have changed during incremental
improvements. Most notably the longer T/R periods are no longer
supported in WSJ
On 16/12/2015 11:34, Guy G4DWV/4X1LT wrote:
> could you supply a link for the JT9 protocol?
https://sourceforge.net/p/wsjt/wsjt/HEAD/tree/branches/wsjtx/jt9.txt
73
Bill
G4WJS.
--
__
Sri to butt in Joe, but could you supply a link for the JT9 protocol? I
found the article on JT65 interesting even though much of it went way above
my current understanding of the subject.
TIA
--
Hi Joe,
It is clear now, thank you.
73 Igor UA3DJY
As far as I know your principal interest in JT65 is its use at HF.
Failures to decode JT65 signals at HF seldom have anything to do with
failure to synchronize. Indeed, at HF it would be better to have a
*smaller* (definitely NOT a larger)
On 12/14/2015 12:24 PM, Игорь Ч wrote:
> Hi Joe and all,
>
> In the JT65 protocol document there is statement: 'For the tests
> illustrated in Figure 4 with SNR less than about –29 dB, failure
> to synchronize is the cause of many failures to decode.'
>
> Quick question: why do not we transmit
Hi Joe and all,
In the JT65 protocol document there is statement: 'For the tests illustrated in
Figure 4 with SNR less than about –29 dB, failure to synchronize is the cause
of many failures to decode.'
Quick question: why do not we transmit sync vector 3 dB higher than other
tones? Some kind
