> From: Black Michael via wsjt-devel [mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net] > Much the same as a rig from 50 years ago looks nothing like today -- > including the fact that old rigs had no "split" capability at all and you had > to use a 2nd transceiver to accomplish the same thing. > Then they added a split button and operators said "what can I do with this?". > And CW split working a DXpedition or such was born. > Then software came along and operators said "what can I do with this?". And > WSJT-X rig split was born. > And then operators said "Rig split doesn't work on my rig with WSJT-X". And > WSJT-X Fake It was born.
Hi Mike, A nice review of history, I have lived through it! You describe well how rig control for split evaluated. BUT the last two made a new usage of the rig split function. That split is totally a station's internal action/function as the resulting transmitted signal does not change due the split action. Operator is still needs to take care of the *split working* i.e. to select a different transmission frequency than the target station is using for transmission. That means we now have two different 'splits'. Sam just sent his proposal how to remove the split word in the relation of the local split usage. There may be no need for a 'two level' selection and just the title could be 'Audio optimization'. For sure related text in the User Guide needs same update, but in addition the 'Hold Tx Freq' related description should introduce 'split working' and perhaps a note to state that the Audio Optimization is independent of that and can be used at the same time. > Let's just agree that things change over time and we need to revisit our > burned-in-the-brain definitions of things. Yes, but uses should also informed that there are two different splits used, when operating WSJT-X. > This hobby is all about learning so let's learn something new....and it's not > that new since WSJT-X has been out for a very long time. Sure, but the learning curve for FT8 is quite steep and any unnecessary confusion should be avoided. > I do realize that many don't understand the nuances of the different modes -- > much as I've had to help educate many just about bandwidth alone and have > found trying to educate some about the 1500-2000Hz behavior can take some > considerable effort for it to sink in. I have the same feeling. Better to make that specific issue less confusing. 73, Reino OH3mA _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
