Matt, An excellent example how two receivers and brains do a proper diversity combining. To do the same with FT8 is bit more challenging than just combining audio streams, hi! 73, Reino OH3mA

That's a great idea Reino and is on my list of things to play with. 3 instances of WSJT-X, one with RX1 audio, one with RX2 audio and one with RX1 and RX2 audio combined. Should be very

I know this Laurie, but I found , with multiple slices/radios I was not getting accurate displays from wsjt, because the adi files are not all the same, so it was easier to just be sure I rescan and

in wsjtx look at settings, colors tab if you right click, a choice of menu items comes up. I imagine jtdx would happen similarly Dave Garber VE3WEJ / VE3IE wd4kpd@...> wrote:

Andy, I used 040 as for FT8: they don't interfere with each other. I hope to contact you asap. Now? I'm on air with the special call IR2SR (150° of the death of Samuel Morse)... I'll try with

I've used JS8 over QO-100. It works well. But this was an arranged test, so we chose our frequency arbitrarily. I don't know where you would go for random CQ / QSOs Andy www.g4jnt.com

A solution could be a uplink using 144 (or 28) band SSB (low doppler at these frequencies) and downlink using 432 (or 1296) FM with a special, digital only, satellite. Dreams? Pietro

Hi Matt Just an observation about your arrangement how you have combined signals from two antennas. Depending on how your dual receiver actually generates audio signals and how well in sync those

It works, but asks for freq stability much better than FT4. BTW I can' understand because the most of us work in FT8 when FT4 is enough for a QSO with very poor antenna and power. FT4 is not

No, it covers Brazil until Russia, India. You can see the area here: https://eshail.batc.org.uk/ I hope one other in the future can cover USA and permits ground-sat-sat-ground QSO 73. Pietro

Hi, Most probably use of FM as a carrier for FT4 or FT8 is more than discouraged as the satellite bandwidth is quite a limited resource in most satellites. A FM-rig that uses speech settings needs

For speed JT9-Fast is the best. And if you use teh wide spaced JT9G-Fast or JT9H-Fast you have much better immunity to Doppler I have recently tested JT9G-Fast and JT9-H-Fast, in the forward

That's probably more the guys with the modern radios that can shift themselves around as needed via computer control. Nothing wrong at all with working that low in the RF space as long as you know how

Judging from the number of stations trying to make contacts below 200hz I think you may be on to something. Bob - wd6dod

Also, do not make the assumption that everyone is using a digitally controlled frequency locked "modern" radio. 73 -Jim NU0C "Timothy Brannon" <timbmd@...> wrote:

In my experience striving to keep yourself in the clear is the correct thing to do. Yes FT8 is pretty robust for tolerating overlapping signals, but it still hurts to be on top of anther signal, RX or

Accurate in frequency, but the analog halves of computer sound cards are notoriously non-linear (that is, relatively high distortion). 73, Jim K9YC

FYI work with audio test tones all the time. Computers and even the cheapest sound devices can very accurately generate audio tones. Accurate enough to tune a guitar or piano. yahoo.com@groups.io>

https://www.amsat.se/2020/05/31/ft4-via-satellite/ ft8 would likely work but maybe not...

This is interesting. I have been doing it wrong all these months. I was just looking in a clear place on the waterfall. No matter. Wsjtx does not work properly on my system any longer so it’s