Date   

locked Re: A couple of associated queries

Reino Talarmo
 

>Answer 1 - caused by the screen scrolling up as the next batch of decodes arrives. By-product of the improved decoding and faster display of the initial decode pass.
On a busy band it is difficult to keep up and very easy to select the wrong decode when clicking.

Have you tried select in General ’Start new period decodes at top’? It should help.

 

73, Reino OH3mA


locked Re: WSJT-X 2.2.1 and Kenwood TS-890S: What's best for split?

Reino Talarmo
 

>From: main@WSJTX.groups.io [mailto:main@WSJTX.groups.io] On Behalf Of Jon Suehiro
Sent: 16. kesäkuuta 2020 22:15
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] WSJT-X 2.2.1 and Kenwood TS-890S: What's best for split?

 

>No rig control needed.  I set the Data mode 100Hz ~ 2,900Hz, no equalizer / flat.  So TX power is constant in the specific audio band.
In the old rig with narrow SSB filter like 2.4kHz, you want to shift the TX frequency so that you get the similar TX power on 2.8kHz or so audio.  I don't see any other reason.  Jon NN5T

 

Jon,

There is another important reason why ‘Rig split’ or ‘Fake it’ is highly recommended. Reason is potential audio channel un-linearity i.e. distortion. In SSB that distortion is less importance as most components are in the speech audio band, but sometimes there can be ‘splatter’.

 

In this FT8 example TX audio is set to 600 Hz and its distortions at clearly seen at 1200 Hz and 1800 Hz. Those do are QRM to other FT8 users and nobody likes those. If TX audio it kept above 1500 Hz, then those components are attenuated in the transmit filter.

73, Reino OH3mA


locked Re: FT4, FT8 and system clock

ve3ki
 

If all of the DT values you see in FT8 are 1.6 to 2.1, then regardless of what Dimension 4 is saying, it seems likely that the time in your computer is off by around 1.8 seconds. It's not very believable that everyone else on the band would all have errors that large and all in the same direction. You should be seeing DT values typically between, oh, -0.3 and +0,3 or so, with just a few outliers in both directions (+ and -) from a minority of people whose clocks are not as tightly controlled as they could/should be.

It is to be expected that FT4 with its shorter cycle time would be more sensitive to time errors than FT8, and if your (or everyone else's) system clock was off by as much as your FT8 results are suggesting, it would not be surprising if that was too much for FT4.

Visit the <https://time.is/> web site to see what your system clock error really is. Then, if time.is confirms the diagnosis based on the FT8 readings, find the Dimension 4 setting that appears to be responsible for preventing it from setting your clock correctly.

73,
Rich VE3KI


On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:30 PM, Paul wrote:

Dimension 4 is reporting my computer clock is at -0.007s referenced to ntp3.cs.wisc.edu.

 

I am looking at 20m and on FT8 I see about 20 decodes every cycle with DT's running from 1.6 to 2.1.

 

I switch to FT4 and I see between 4 and 6 signals on the Spectrum display but no decodes.

 

Anyone have any idea why FT4 doesn't seem to be doing anything and why the FT8 DT's do not average around 0?

 

de Paul, W8AEF

 


locked Re: WSJT-X 2.2.1 and Kenwood TS-890S: What's best for split?

Jon Suehiro
 

No rig control needed.  I set the Data mode 100Hz ~ 2,900Hz, no equalizer / flat.  So TX power is constant in the specific audio band.
In the old rig with narrow SSB filter like 2.4kHz, you want to shift the TX frequency so that you get the similar TX power on 2.8kHz or so audio.  I don't see any other reason.  Jon NN5T


locked Re: Remote Desktop Audio Loss

Erik Icket
 

Hi Daniel,

You may try Teamviewer or DWService for accessing your remote desktop. These do not disconnect the established audio connections upon connect / disconnect.

73's Erik
ON4PB


locked FT4, FT8 and system clock

Paul <w8aef@...>
 

Dimension 4 is reporting my computer clock is at -0.007s referenced to ntp3.cs.wisc.edu.

 

I am looking at 20m and on FT8 I see about 20 decodes every cycle with DT's running from 1.6 to 2.1.

 

I switch to FT4 and I see between 4 and 6 signals on the Spectrum display but no decodes.

 

Anyone have any idea why FT4 doesn't seem to be doing anything and why the FT8 DT's do not average around 0?

 

de Paul, W8AEF

 


locked Re: problem with WSJTX receive

Henry Kiernan
 

Hi Bill

continue to pursue this problem - still getting only a fraction of decodes on new Win 10 computer/sound card as on old Win 7 computer/sound card.

tried 5 different level settings on sound control recording tab: level 0 db/mic boost 0 db; level 9 db(max setting)/mic boost 0 db; level 9 db/mic boost 10 db; level 9 db/mic boost 20 db; and level 9 db/mic boost 30 db (max). 

in each case I looked at the number of green bars showing on the recording tab during a 15 sec decode (strength), the range of db readings on the WSJTX left side slider during a cycle, and the range of decodes produced over several cycles.

0db/0db combo - no green bars, slider 30-50 db, 7-13 decodes
9db/0db combo - no green bars, slider 40-55 db, 7-14 decodes
9db/10db combo - 1 green bar, blinking on and off, slider 45-65 db, 8-20 decodes
9db/20db combo - 1-3 green bars, slider 50-75 db, 10-20 decodes
9db/30db combo - 7-10 green bars, slider mostly in red zone, 8-12 decodes

guess we rule out last one since always red zone. best after that would be mic boost 20 seems like best result in decodes and green strength bars.

decodes very inconsistent regardless of which combo - may get 20, then 8 on next decode of same cycle, then 14, then 10 then 18 then 8 etc. I realize it is normal to vary number of decodes, but the range is very large on sequential decodes of the same cycle (1sts e.g.) haven't seen that much variance on old computer.

with no signals WSJTX slider bounces around between 20-40 db.

the new sound card has a combination line in/mic jack not a separate line in jack like the old card. does that make any difference?

I also wonder about strength of audio going out, although there is no measurement that I know about on that. just don't seem to get responses as easily as with old computer. but I have made qsos and with decent strength reports.

does this data help figure out what is wrong?

Hank

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Somerville <g4wjs@...>
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Sent: Mon, Jun 8, 2020 6:47 am
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] problem with WSJTX receive

On 08/06/2020 04:04, Henry Kieran via groups.io wrote:

> Converting from old Win 7 computer to new Win 10 computer (including
> old vs new Soundblaster sound cards). Old computer works fine with
> WSJTX, but want to avoid problems with no more Win 7 support.
>
> Have noticed a sharp reduction in number of signals decoded using new
> computer compared to old one at same time frame. can't figure out why.
> tonight on the old computer, 20 meters, I was decoding an average of
> 30 signals per 15 second interval - ranged from 22 to 41, over 18
> cycles. on new computer, same time, I was decoding an average of 14
> signals per 15 second interval - ranged from 9 to 21. this is not
> untypical - I have been seeing less than half as many decodes on the
> new vs old computer for several days ever since I set up WSJTX on new
> computer. no apparent reason - both computers show a range of
> frequencies, a range of db signal strengths, etc. radio and microkeyer
> are the same - only the computers are different (and sound cards).
> using WSJTX 2.1.2 version on both (have not converted to newest
> version while I'm still figuring out what is wrong with receive).
>
> with the "recording" tab of sound control panel on new computer set to
> +9db and "mic boost" set to 20db the WSJTX slider varies around 60-70
> in the green zone (well above the recommended 30 level), and I see
> only 2-3 green strength bars (out of 10) in the record tab. if I set
> mic boost to 30 db max, the WSJTX slider junps into the red zone.
> regardless, I still see the same # decodes, far less than the old
> computer is seeing. if I set the record level to 0db and no mic boost
> (recommended) the WSJTX slider stays around the recommended 30 level,
> no green bars show on the record tab, and I decode the same # of
> signals. in short, it doesn't seem to make any difference in # decodes
> regardless of how I set the levels in recording. the old computer is
> set at 0 db and stays in the 30 range on the WSJTX slider.
>
> anybody have any ideas what I can do to recover all those lost decodes???
>
> Hank  KF2O

>
Hi Hank,

you should not use the Mic Boost, that is way to much gain for a line
input. What rig do you have? Is there a way to increase the AF output
level from the rig, rather than boosting the level further down the chain?

Do you have the WSJT-X waterfall width set to be at least as width as
your widest Rx filter on the rig?

Have you selected "Menu->Decode->Deep"? You may also wish to check
"Menu->Decode->Enable AP".

What have you done to ensure you PC clock is synchronized within a
second or so of UTC?

73
Bill
G4WJS.


locked Re: Need Recommendation for USB Sound Adapter to use with WSJT-X

John
 

Thanks Bob, I remember seeing this page years ago.

Thanks again.

John
VE3KKQ

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Bob Lewis <aa4pb@...>
Date: June 16, 2020 at 7:33 PM


Here's the mod that I did:

http://www.highonsolder.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/SignaLink-USB-Noise-Floor-Mod.pdf

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io [mailto:main@WSJTX.groups.io] On Behalf Of John
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 6:56 PM
To: main
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Need Recommendation for USB Sound Adapter to use with
WSJT-X

Hi Bob,

Do you have the info for this mod?

Not sure when my unit was made, haven't connected it yet, got it used.

John
VE3KKQ

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Bob Lewis <aa4pb@...>
Date: June 16, 2020 at 6:35 PM


The noise issue with the early SignaLink-USB was not noise being
generated by the SignaLink, but rather noise placed on the USB power
signal by the computer getting into the SignaLink audio. Some people
saw the noise issue and some didn’t, depending on how noisy the
computer USB power was. There was a modification that added filtering.
I assume later versions of the SignaLink included a fix for the problem.




locked Re: Need Recommendation for USB Sound Adapter to use with WSJT-X

Joe Subich, W4TV
 

On 2020-06-16 6:35 PM, Bob Lewis wrote:
The noise issue with the early SignaLink-USB was not noise being
generated by the SignaLink, but rather noise placed on the USB power
signal by the computer getting into the SignaLink audio.
Filtering/bypassing of the USB +5V line was not the only issue with
Signalink. There is no regulation for the ADC reference and there
is no bypassing/filtering/separation of the audio VCC vs. digital
VCC.

The combination results in 30 dB or more increase in the noise floor
and results in significant reduction of dynamic range. That's not a
problem if the receiver noise floor can overcome the increased noise
floor of the Signalink "sound card" and has an effective AGC to prevent
overload. It even works with EME if there are not both weak and strong
signals in the passband at the same time. However, on HF with signals
at S0 (~-110dBm) and S9+20 present at the same time, the Signalink
simply CAN NOT accommodate the 80 dB or more of dynamic range required
even with modification.

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 2020-06-16 6:35 PM, Bob Lewis wrote:
The noise issue with the early SignaLink-USB was not noise being generated by the SignaLink, but rather noise placed on the USB power signal by the computer getting into the SignaLink audio. Some people saw the noise issue and some didn’t, depending on how noisy the computer USB power was. There was a modification that added filtering. I assume later versions of the SignaLink included a fix for the problem.


locked Re: Need Recommendation for USB Sound Adapter to use with WSJT-X

Bob Lewis
 

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io [mailto:main@WSJTX.groups.io] On Behalf Of John
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 6:56 PM
To: main
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Need Recommendation for USB Sound Adapter to use with WSJT-X

Hi Bob,

Do you have the info for this mod?

Not sure when my unit was made, haven't connected it yet, got it used.

John
VE3KKQ

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Bob Lewis <aa4pb@...>
Date: June 16, 2020 at 6:35 PM


The noise issue with the early SignaLink-USB was not noise being
generated by the SignaLink, but rather noise placed on the USB power
signal by the computer getting into the SignaLink audio. Some people
saw the noise issue and some didn’t, depending on how noisy the
computer USB power was. There was a modification that added filtering.
I assume later versions of the SignaLink included a fix for the problem.




locked Re: FT4 NA VHF Contest mode - TX frequency not changing #ContestMode

John - AI4FR
 

Same issue here. Running WSJT-X 2.2.0 and saw it both on FT8 and FT4 but only on 6m. All other bands worked fine. I tried nothing to fix it such as shutting down software, reloading, reboot, etc. For the little time I worked the contest answering a few folks I simply clicked on the up arrow(under TX freq.) after clicking on their call which brought me to their frequency.

Windows 7
4 instances of WSJT and JTAlert running


73,
John / AI4FR


locked Re: Bug Report - Minor

Bill Somerville
 

On 16/06/2020 23:44, Jeff Stillinger wrote:
WSJT-X 2.2.1: Windows not conforming to dark mode on the following platforms:

MacOS Catalina (10.15.5)

Microsoft Windows Update 2004 (applications set to dark mode)

Fedora 32, Gnome 3.36.2/Wayland Adwaita-Dark
Ubuntu 20.04LTS, Gnome 3.36.2/Wayland Yaru-Dark
Hi Jeff,

the Qt framework we use for cross platform facilities does not support operating system desktop dark modes yet, but we do provide a style sheet that does roughly the same. See the WSJT-X User Guide for details:

https://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx-doc/wsjtx-main-2.2.1.html#DARK_STYLE

73
Bill
G4WJS.


locked Re: Need Recommendation for USB Sound Adapter to use with WSJT-X

John
 

Hi Bob,

Do you have the info for this mod?

Not sure when my unit was made, haven't connected it yet, got it used.

John
VE3KKQ

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Bob Lewis <aa4pb@...>
Date: June 16, 2020 at 6:35 PM


The noise issue with the early SignaLink-USB was not noise being generated by
the SignaLink, but rather noise placed on the USB power signal by the computer
getting into the SignaLink audio. Some people saw the noise issue and some
didn’t, depending on how noisy the computer USB power was. There was a
modification that added filtering. I assume later versions of the SignaLink
included a fix for the problem.




locked Bug Report - Minor

Jeff Stillinger
 

WSJT-X 2.2.1: Windows not conforming to dark mode on the following platforms:

MacOS Catalina (10.15.5)

Microsoft Windows Update 2004 (applications set to dark mode)

Fedora 32, Gnome 3.36.2/Wayland Adwaita-Dark
Ubuntu 20.04LTS, Gnome 3.36.2/Wayland Yaru-Dark


locked Re: Need Recommendation for USB Sound Adapter to use with WSJT-X

Bob Lewis
 

The noise issue with the early SignaLink-USB was not noise being generated by the SignaLink, but rather noise placed on the USB power signal by the computer getting into the SignaLink audio. Some people saw the noise issue and some didn’t, depending on how noisy the computer USB power was. There was a modification that added filtering. I assume later versions of the SignaLink included a fix for the problem.

 


locked Re: FT4 asynchronous mode

JTAlert Support (VK3AMA)
 

On 17/06/2020 7:08 am, Tony Collett via groups.io wrote:
Plenty of FT4 on 40m and 20m, especially useful when FT8 frequencies are so overpopulated. I've seen some 30m FT4 but little elsewhere.

FYI, if your Windows based, JTAlert you can give you a good overview of the current level of FT4 activity and the Bands being used via its "Band Activity" window which gets updated every minute from spot data stats capture on HamSpots.net.

de Laurie VK3AMA


locked Re: Need Recommendation for USB Sound Adapter to use with WSJT-X

Jim Shorney
 

It is very cheap and easy to do a high quality direct connection if you read K9YC's papers on audio interfacing grounding. Fancy interface boxen are good tools for separating you from your money. :D

73

-Jim
NU0C

On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 16:36:24 -0400
"Kai-KE4PT" <k.siwiak@...> wrote:

Hi Bob,
I agree, additionally:
Pro: the Signalink USB is tiny and very light weight - perfect backpacking
companion, especially on overseas trips.
Con: it does have an increase in the noise floor below 300 Hz without the easy mod.
Pro: only one cable needed to the FT817 standard 6-Pin DIN connector, and only
one cable to the computer USB port. Simple portable hookup.
I too do not advise connecting ANY interface card to the MIC audio jack if you
can avoid it, although it is possible and I have used it that way on an Icom
756PRO-III when other ports were occupied.
Also used the Signalink-USB on a 2m band EME station quite successfully. Decoded
signals at the sensitivity limits of JT65.

Kind regards,
Kai, KE4PT


On 6/16/2020 08:07, Bob McGraw - K4TAX wrote:
The Signalink USB has its own internal VOX circuit activated by the computer
audio to generate a relay closure for PTT.   It DOES NOT rely on the VOX on
the radio.

As to any shortcomings of the circuit, the issues have been resolved in later
produced units.    Having used a Signalink USB with one of my radios for
digital modes, it works just fine and is easy to interface.  I do suggest one
get the correct cable for their radio and configure the internal jumpers for
the radio Line Input or AUX input.

I DO NOT advise connecting to the normal mike input for digital modes.

73
Bob, K4TAX


locked Re: FT4 asynchronous mode

Bill Lederer
 

There was also some FT4 on 6 meters during the ARRL VHF June contest.  Far fewer than on FT8, unfortunately.

w8lvn

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 4:08 PM Tony Collett via groups.io <tony.nbs=btinternet.com@groups.io> wrote:
Tad - Plenty of FT4 on 40m and 20m, especially useful when FT8 frequencies are so overpopulated. I've seen some 30m FT4 but little elsewhere.

Ken - there are already comments in UK about FT4 not being ideally sorted for contesting due to (amongst other things) not being able to predict which period to chose to Tx on, I can imagine what might be said if asynchronous mode was implemented, even if it was tied to whole seconds. Wouldn't just be half the activity that you would never see.

Love your first comment Reino! As FT4 has been implemented it does level the playing field somewhat :-)

73
tony G4NBS



--
--w8lvn--


locked Re: Q

Randall Ziegenbein
 

Thank you Mr. Bob Lewis!  I can now see stations I've worked before thanks to your procedure. 
Bill, I see you respond to all problems no matter how trivial.  And this one was trivial. I wanted emphasis on this because I didn't want to call a station again because we worked before.
Awesome software and I'm enjoying it a lot.  A month ago I didn't even know FT8 existed.
73, Randy, K6RCZ.


locked Re: FT4 asynchronous mode

Tony Collett
 

Tad - Plenty of FT4 on 40m and 20m, especially useful when FT8 frequencies are so overpopulated. I've seen some 30m FT4 but little elsewhere.

Ken - there are already comments in UK about FT4 not being ideally sorted for contesting due to (amongst other things) not being able to predict which period to chose to Tx on, I can imagine what might be said if asynchronous mode was implemented, even if it was tied to whole seconds. Wouldn't just be half the activity that you would never see.

Love your first comment Reino! As FT4 has been implemented it does level the playing field somewhat :-)

73
tony G4NBS