- Forums - Search - Statistics -    >>> Please LOGIN to POST messages! <<<

	MMMonVHF Forum / WSJT /
WSJT 8 - BETA Tests and Informations

	DL8EBW Team member	#1 - Posted: 20 Jun 2010 14:56 - Edited by: DL8EBW
First off all, here the original Mail from Joe, K1JT, which he did spread around yesterday at MoonNet, WSJTGROUPS and others: To: Users of WSJT From: Joe Taylor, K1JT A beta release of WSJT8 is now available on the WSJT Home Page. The following text comes from the first page of the WSJT8 User's Guide, http://www.physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/WSJT8_User.pdf ################################################################### WSJT8 is an experimental version of the familiar weak-signal communication program WSJT. It offers new protocols or "modes" optimized for meteor scatter, ionospheric scatter, EME, microwaves, and QRP at HF. Like the modes in previous versions of WSJT, the new ones are intended for making minimal QSOs, not for rag-chewing. WSJT8 modes are not compatible with those in WSJT7. To use the new modes, transmitting and receiving stations must *both* use WSJT8. This introductory User's Guide explains how the new experimental modes differ from the familiar modes FSK441, JT6M, JT65, and JT4. It assumes that you are already familiar with installing and using WSJT7. Please consider the Guide is a living document; it will be modified and extended frequently in coming weeks. The online version can be called up with a single keystroke from within WSJT8, so you can easily check for updates. My working hypothesis is that the new modes in WSJT8 offer significant advantages over those in WSJT7 — and that it will probably make sense to recommend a complete switch-over some months from now. For that transition to happen in an orderly fashion, we'll need a widely held consensus that the change is for the better. If one of the new modes does not live up to present expectations, or for another reason it's decided that some feature of WSJT7 should be retained, that wish can probably be accommodated. Input from users will be important following the initial beta release of WSJT8. I need to know what works, what doesn't work, what should be improved, and what enhancements should be given highest priority. All comments and suggestions will be greatly appreciated! Please note: Before using WSJT8, be sure to read this full document to familiarize yourself with the design goals and motivations for the new modes, and with the available message formats. ################################################################### If you found and downloaded WSJT8r1943.EXE before receiving this announcement, you should download and install the program again from the installation file WSJT8r1944.EXE. Go here http://www.physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjt.html to find the download link. After gaining some experience with the beta release of WSJT8 Please share your views and opinions about it! -- 73, Joe, K1JT SOURCE: Joe Taylor, K1JT, 2010-06-19 via several VHF/MOON Reflector New FORUM Place on your VHF-DX-Portal MMMonVHF as well as others of course the Team members of MMMonVHF was testing the new BETA version of WSJT 8. We all did make our first steps and experieces and have first off all give some regards and a "big thank you" to Joe, K1JT, for again offering new tools to the community! MMMonVHF will offer now a place at the FORUM (calls WSJT): http://www.mmmonvhf.de/minibb/index.php?action=vtopic&forum=14 to have some hints, have some coment and have some discussion platform about NEW and OLD versions! We did start today with the recommendation abt. the 3-4 old versions which are still in use on 144 MHZ EME and MS - there are big differences and so each of these versions will have its own adavantage! After we do place the Mail from yesterday and wish to start than with the results of the MMMonVHF Users - we will pass the infos later to Joe and maybe he is able to use the one or other idea or have some solution abt some faults which did occure... Have fun at the new FORUM Page "WSJT" 73 de Guy DL8EBW Team of MMMonVHF

	DL8EBW Team member	#2 - Posted: 20 Jun 2010 15:06
Here a first info from Joe, K1JT, after some hours of USER tests: Re: Beta release of WSJT8 Many thanks to all who have sent reports on their tests with WSJT8. Here's an early summary of what people are discovering. 1. On first startup you must select your audio devices, then exit the program and restart. Yes, it's in the manual ... 2. ISCAT appears to be an excellent mode for 6 meters. Many QSOs were made with it yesterday. As far as I have heard, its performance is excellent -- better than JT6M. I was pleased yesterday to have my CQs on 50.260 answered by many stations... astonishingly, including KF6JEP in DM12, 2400 miles away. Of course this must have been double-hop Es -- or perhaps "chord-hop" Es? -- rather than ionoscatter. Signals were barely audible, if at all. Copy was "all or nothing", as expected for the FEC used in ISCAT. No other west-coast stations were heard at the time (or at any other time yesterday). 3. Some have reported good results with JTMS for meteor scatter on 6m and 2m. Others have not had good results. If you have WAV files with decent JTMS pings, whether they decoded or not, please send me a few. 4. JT64 and JT8 work very well at HF, although the program operating features are a bit clunky. (That can easily be fixed; right now, I'm most interested in testing the modes themselves.) Neither JT64 nor JT8 works for EME -- at least, not in WSJT8r1944. Could it be that I have not allowed enough DT range to accopmmodate the 2.5 s EME delay?? Probably this, or something else stupid, is preventing EME decodes. Or, perhaps, the tone spacing is too close for these modes to work without some software AFC ? It seems that I have some work to do. If you have a few files with good EME signals in JT64 or JT8, please send them to me for analysis. I'm traveling for part of next week, but will post messages here when there is news to share. Thanks again for your help in testing the experimental modes in WSJT8. -- 73, Joe, K1JT We do hope as well from MMMonVHF User there are some more tests and infos here at the FORUM and later back to Joe, K1JT. Have a good start into the new week 73 de Guy DL8EBW Team of MMMonVHF

	DL8EBW Team member	#3 - Posted: 21 Jun 2010 06:40 - Edited by: DL8EBW
WSJT 8 BETA on the bands As you might have seen there are several tests going on with the BETA version of WSJT 8 - PLEASE ee aware that WSJT7 and WSJT8 modes ARE NOT COMPATIBLE!!! So if you wonna take part in that tests please do announce it clear that you are running WSJT 8 and searching for partners looking for the same - WJST 7 (and earlier) USER might otherwise copy your signal and have no chance for decoding... 73 de Guy DL8EBW Team of MMMonVHF

	DL8EBW Team member	#4 - Posted: 22 Jun 2010 03:09
NEWS from Joe, K1JT, 2010-06-21: Hi All, Many new reports on the WSJT8 modes over the past 24 hours. Thanks to all for the helpful comments, suggestions, and wave files! JTMS and ISCAT: --------------- Most reports on ISCAT say it works well. Decoder is too slow, perhaps. That can (and will) be improved -- probably by a lot. More examples of wave files are needed, examples of both good and poor performance. Reports on JTMS are more variable. Some say it works great, seems to decode well, produces few junk messages. Others say that they prefer FSK441's ability to decode partial messages, especially very short ones, and that they could complete a QSO more quickly with the older mode. This is exactly the sort of information that's needed. EU users: please take note that the message templates can be edited to whatever you like; and yes, of course it will be possible to turn off the shorthand message feature. JT64 and JT8: ------------- Today I established that in WSJT8r1944 the JT8 decoder, like the JT64 decoder, does not search over enough range in DT to synchronize EME signals. My fault; all of the tests before last weekend had been on terrestrial paths. This was easily fixed. All JT64 and JT8 EME-path files sent to me now decode as they should. I might package another release tomorrow, so that people can make a few more EME tests. If you do this, please: 1. Send me a few more example wave files. 2. Do not be surprised if JT64 or JT8 still fails to decode, when you're pretty sure that JT65B would have been OK. As I've mentioned before, the decoders for these experimental modes are certainly not in final form. They may be slow, they don't compensate for frequency drift, ... etc. It's necessary to walk before we can run. Again: the main purposes of these very early tests of the experimental modes in WSJT8 are two-fold: 1. To generate some real-world wave files, to be used for optimizing the decoders. 2. To gather evidence on whether each new experimental mode has the potential to be better than the one it might replace. I have no particular stake in a YES or NO answer in each case. If the answer turns out to be no, well and good: future effort can be shifted over to further performance enhancements for the existing modes. If we knew the answers to experiments in advance, there would be no point in doing the experiments! Please keep the reports and wave files coming... -- 73, Joe, K1JT (at VHF-Reflector / MoonNet)

	DK1IE Forums Member	#5 - Posted: 22 Jun 2010 08:15
Hi all , WSJT 8 is not runnning on my system with Windows 7/ 64 Bit . When started just plops up on the screen and after a second off from the screen. Does anyone know what to do ? 73's Klaus , DK 1 IE

	DM1CG Forums Member	#6 - Posted: 22 Jun 2010 17:26
JTMS - revice only 2 per - then blue DECODE - solution restart WSJT 8 backspace doesnt work on >to Radio < only DEL WindowsXP SP3 - DELL D600 1GB Ram

	DM1CG Forums Member	#7 - Posted: 22 Jun 2010 17:42
When freezed and blue Decode - nearly 100% CPU load Windows XP SP3 - D600 1 GB RAM

	DK1IE Forums Member	#8 - Posted: 25 Jun 2010 12:05
Hi all , WSJT 8 is running on my old XP computer , but not on my new Win7/64 bit system . And as Phil , N1 KL wrote : WSJT opens , but immediately terminates. No function at all . Does anyone know what to do ? 73's Klaus , DK 1 IE

	DH3YAK Forums Member	#9 - Posted: 27 Jun 2010 07:24
Test 1: PC AMD Athlon XP2200, 512MB RAM, WinXP SP3 Test 2: Netbook Intel Atom, 2GB RAM, Win7 Ulti Installation went well. Not satisfied with the decoding. JTMS: Decoding rate is minor in comparison to FSK and yes I experience rubbish decode. JT64: Not tested yet 73, Winfried

	DK5EW Team member	#10 - Posted: 29 Jun 2010 16:18
Bypass from wsjt Yahoo group Birdie underpressing ? unfortunately the ZAP code is not implemented yet in WSJT8, so we have to wait for one of the next releases. I already sent some mails with suggestions and WAV-files with no decodings (especially in JTMS mode on 2m) to K1JT. The birdie problem is present here as well and I am sure, Joe will drag and drop the ZAP code included in WSJT7 as soon as possible to WSJT8. He also told in "moon-net" that he will add the "no shorthands" switch again so that europeans, which usually do not use short- hands at all, won't get those "fake" reports anymore because of birdies. Regards de Chris, HB9DFG

	DL8EBW Team member	#11 - Posted: 30 Jun 2010 04:03 - Edited by: DL8EBW
transfer from Topic of OE3FVU (first results) - tnx to Joe, K1JT, for reply My sincere thanks to all who have provided feedback on the experimental testing of WSJT8! The main purpose of these tests was to generate many on-the-air recordings of signals using the four new experimental modes JTMS, ISCAT, JT64, and JT8. These modes use a variety of schemes for synchronization, source encoding, error-control coding, and modulation -- most of them quite different from the protocols in WSJT7. The tests were aimed at establishing how well each scheme performs under challenging weak-signal conditions. This goal has been accomplished very effectively, and I'm grateful to all those who sent me their recordings. Here are some early conclusions based on the many reports received from around the world. First, some technical results: ---------------------------------- 1. The synchronization, coding, and modulation schemes built into JT8 and JT64 are effective. Both modes work well at HF; they also work well for EME (although not with the decoders that were distributed in WSJT8 r1944). The decoders for both modes are sub-optimal in a variety of ways, sometimes annoyingly so. They would need further work before they could be declared suitable for a production release of WSJT8. 2. The modulation and coding scheme in JTMS works well for meteor scatter at VHF. In particular, it has been clearly established that MSK ("minimum shift keying") is a viable modulation technique for the MS path. Phase locking of a signal can be done reliably over the duration of meteor pings and bursts. The bandwidth efficiency of MSK is very attractive. A clear disadvantage of JTMS relative to FSK441 is that JTMS cannot make good use of pings shorter than about 75 ms. 3. The ISCAT mode is highly effective for its intended purpose -- ionospheric scatter at 50 MHz -- and also for multi-hop Es signals too weak for successful SSB or CW QSOs. I now have on hand many examples of recorded ISCAT signals that decode perfectly while being essentially inaudible and invisible on the waterfall display. Now, some user-level results: ----------------------------------- 4. Many successful QSOs have been made with each of the new experimental modes, both on their primarily intended propagation paths and on others. The WSJT8 decoders are less polished and slower than those in WSJT7 (as was known to be true, even before any field tests were solicited). 5. Some users in IARU Region 1 are unhappy with the structured message formats of JTMS and ISCAT, even though these structures are a super-set of the well accepted ones in JT65. The reluctance seems to arise from a wish to adhere strictly to procedures for MS QSOs dictated in Appendix 4, "Revised Meteor Scatter Procedures", described in the VHF/UHF/Microwaves Committee Report Interim Meeting, Vienna 2004 (see www.physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/vie04_02.rtf). On this side of the Atlantic, we consider a QSO valid when operators have exchanged callsigns, signal reports, and rogers. We do not dictate the precise arrangement of information in the transmissions conveying these bits of information. The Region 1 VHF Managers Handbook, updated in May 2010, adopts the same approach as used here in Region 2 (see www.physics/princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/VHF_Handbook_V5_42.pdf , pp. 98-105). The WSJT8 message structures fully support the requirements for valid QSOs laid out in the 2010 Handbook, which (I have assumed) supersedes the 2004 document. If I am mistaken, I hope someone will correct me. 6. Apparently someone has concluded (and "explained" to others) that hashed callsigns are not usable by a DXpedition because the operator would want to decode more than one caller while a QSO is going on. In fact, there is no such problem. Hashed callsigns can be used very effectively in such a situation. Many stations could be calling the DX operator at once, and no confusion need arise over who is calling and who is being worked. No doubt if WSJT8 is to survive, its eventual User's Guide will need to give more examples, in order to allay this fear. The Bottom Line? -------------------- Each of the experimental modes is effective, and much has been learned from their development and testing. However, the presently available results do not support a conclusion that JT64 will provide substantial advantages over JT65, or JT8 over JT4, or JTMS over FSK441. ISCAT is clearly superior to JT6M in many -- perhaps most? -- circumstances, but its decoder will need to be made faster if the mode is to become popular. Happily, it seems likely that a number of lessons learned while developing and testing JTMS, ISCAT, JT64, and JT8 can be back-ported to the traditional WSJT7 modes with good effect. I intend to spend some weeks looking into these possibilities before making a final decision on whether WSJT8 merits further work. As always, the views of others will be gratefully received! -- 73, Joe, K1JT

	W5UWB Forums Member	#12 - Posted: 1 Jul 2010 13:17
I will continue to use JT6M on 6 meters for multi-hop E's to EU, set up using EU format. 73 - John W5UWB EL17ax

	DL8EBW Team member	#13 - Posted: 29 Aug 2010 01:52 - Edited by: DL8EBW
WSJT 9 BETA: TRANSFER FROM INFO of VK7MO on VK-VHF-Net: Below is a summary of comments on the new version of JTMS (revision 2127). While there is not much in it, I believe we can say that JTMS has not demonstrated to be better than FSK441. From simulation tests it seems JTMS does not decode to quite as low a S/N, and thus is worse on very weak pings, but it does decode more information on stronger pings due to its faster speed. The poorer performance on weak pings is born out in the reports below, however, the increased numbers of characters due to its faster speed is not as easy to notice in on-air tests with the wide variability of meteor pings. Following discussions on the 40 metre callback we have agreed to return to FSK441 for next weekend's activity sessions and give it the same critical assessment. However, we may come back to JTMS the following weekend. One possibility is that a non-averaging version of JTMS might be worth testing as this would offer an increase of around 15% in speed. Thus for next weekend's activity sessions between VK-ZL and within VK we will use FSK441. After next weekend please either let me know on the 40 metre callback or email me to let me know if you would like to do further tests of JTMS during specified activity sessions. 73 Rex VK7MO SUMMARY ZL4DK: About 4 pings in total, all seemed to decode at least as well as fsk441. Very bad rapid noise fluctuations here today didn't help. ZL4LV: Only 3 pings received here Rex, all good decodes, almost no false decodes, local noise very low. ZL3CU: I believe JTMS is as good if not better than FSK441. Please find attached the wav file for this decode: 201430 14.6 140 2 26 115 2ZL3CU/RRR ZL4LV/R26 VK7MO X It is a very modest ping with a lot of good info in it. ZL3TY: Could not say that JTMS is better than FSK441, but would like to have more experience with it before a decision is made. VK3KH: It does not seem quite as forgiving as FSK441, but that may just be more practice needed. Completed with John 4JMC, and recvd and txed report 2AWD Dave. Decoded locally 3SO much easier than FSK441. On decent size pings it is nice - doesn't work as well on small pings where on fsk441 you can get more out of repeated manual decodes. VK1WJ: hard to say if it is better than FSK441, missed some pings that would have decoded on FSK441 but worked better on Aircraft Enhancement without the need to manual decode as for FSK441. VK2AWD: Produced far more false decodes than FSK441 and had to increase S to 3. Not apparent that it is any better than FSK441 on meteors. Certainly better on Aircraft Enhancement. VK4JMC: My first impression (in an operational situation) was that some auto decodes were lost due to the averaging where there were multiple call signs eg. 214400 15.8 220 6 26 -28 VK1WJ/26 VK7MO VI2AGD/73 * Auto decode the manual decode gave vk2awd/73 as well, VK3SO: JTMS is better on strong pings VK5PJ: questions whether we need a larger sample. VK7MO: JTMS seemed to: 1. miss some small pings that would decode on FSK441. 2. occasionally not decode short strong pings. 3. It also seems to give rubbish decodes on some pings that would likely decode on FSK441. However, on going back over the wave files it was possible to decode a number of the missed pings with repeated manual decodes and seems many of these may in fact be noise so the difference is not clear. TNX for the nice infos via MoonNet, Rex! 73 de Guy DL8EBW Team of MMMonVHF

MMMonVHF Forum / WSJT / WSJT 8 - BETA Tests and Informations

↑ Top

General News & Reviews VHF-Database QSL Most Wanted Beacon EME MS ES TR AU SDR Miscellaneous WSJT Geocaching