I have it working well with JTAlert-X version - qso's logged with WSJT-X are automatically sent to JTAlert and on to Log4OM. But, it was a QSO loser! I can't tell you how many times I would respond to a station's call, see a nice strong reply on the waterfall and have NO decoding results. I should note that I really liked the JAT65-HB9HQX version as far as the user interface and its built in logging, display of worked stations on same band, worked on different bands, worked grid, statistics window, and the antenna bearing information. I also found JT65-HF to be a least as good as Comfort and HB9HQX at decoding. On one test over 15 minutes of decoding, with WSJT-X and JT65-HF running parallel listening to the same signals from a SignaLink USB device, WSJT-X decoded 73 signals, while JT65-HF decoded 61.
I have conducted a few tests, and on average, WSJT-X will decode about 20% more signals than JT65-HF or its two derivatives: Comfort and HB9HQX. I have found WSJT-X to decode significantly more signals. Thanks to Juergen (DF5WW) who suggested I try WSJT-X.
#JT65 HF OR WSJTX SOFTWARE#
Times written to the ALL.TXT cumulative journal file are now correct, even when decoding occurs after the T/R sequence boundary.Well, now I am on my 4th JT65 software trial. Other changes: Signal-to-noise (SNR) estimates no longer saturate at +20 dB, and large signals in the passband no longer cause the SNR of weaker signals to be biased low. “Overall decoding yield on crowded bands is improved by 10% or more,” Taylor said.
A second processing step starts at 13.5 seconds, and a third at 14.7 seconds. This means users see most decodes much sooner than with previous versions. New in WSJT-X version 2.2.0: FT8 decoding is now spread over three intervals, the first starting at 11.8 seconds into a receive sequence and typically yielding around 85% of the possible decodes. “All fast modes in WSJT-X send their message frames repeatedly, as many times as will fit into the sequence length,” he explained.Ĭompared with FT8, FT4 is 3.5 dB less sensitive and requires 1.6 times the bandwidth, but it offers the potential for twice the contact rate. Taylor noted that even with their shorter transmit-receive sequences, FT4 and FT8 are considered “slow modes,” because their message frames are sent only once per transmission. “FT4 is faster still (7.5-second T/R sequences) and especially well suited for contesting.” “FT8 is operationally similar but four times faster (15-second T/R sequences) and less sensitive by a few decibels,” developer Joe Taylor, K1JT, explains in the version 2.2.0 User Guide. JT65 and QRA64 were designed for EME (“moonbounce”) on VHF/UHF bands but have also proven very effective for worldwide very low-power communication on HF bands. The first six are designed for reliable contacts under weak-signal conditions, and they use nearly identical message structure and source encoding.
WSJT-X version 2.2 offers 10 different protocols or modes - FT4, FT8, JT4, JT9, JT65, QRA64, ISCAT, MSK144, WSPR, and Echo. WSJT-X version 2.2.0 is now in general availability release, after a short stint in beta (or release candidate) status.