Ok, what is the truth here? Is JT9 better than JT65 on 160m, or is it inferior?????
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Brian D G3VGZ <[email protected] > wrote: > ... I find the better ability for JT65 to decode co-channel signals with > its two pass decoding makes up for any 2dB improvement in decoding JT9. I > also find a single static crash can take out JT9 decodes, more so than JT65. > That certainly got my attention! Has anyone else experienced this? *And if so, what filter were you using: the wide SSB filter or a narrower CW filter?? *I'm inclined to think that JT9 is superior to JT65 on 160m. *But I have an open mind.* I'm cc'ing this to K1JT himself, the Top Band Digital 160m Yahoo Group, and the Topband reflector. * Please share your experiences.* *TIA.* 73, Mike www.w0btu.com > On 5/13/2017 3:27 PM, Mike Waters wrote: > Why not JT9? It has a 2 dB improvement in S/N ratio on 160, while using > only 1/10 of the bandwidth. > I cannot understand why JT9 is used so little on 160 thru 20. JT65 is a > VHF mode. > physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx.html > [snip] > > -- > Brian D > G3VGZ > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
