mirror of
				https://github.com/saitohirga/WSJT-X.git
				synced 2025-10-30 20:40:28 -04:00 
			
		
		
		
	
		
			
	
	
		
			42 lines
		
	
	
		
			2.0 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Plaintext
		
	
	
	
	
	
		
		
			
		
	
	
			42 lines
		
	
	
		
			2.0 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Plaintext
		
	
	
	
	
	
|  | // Status=review | |||
|  | 
 | |||
|  | The most striking difference between JT65 and JT9 is the much smaller | |||
|  | occupied bandwidth of JT9: 15.6 Hz, compared with 177.6 Hz for JT65A. | |||
|  | Transmissions in the two modes are essentially the same length, and | |||
|  | both modes use exactly 72 bits to carry message information. At the | |||
|  | user level the two modes support nearly identical message structures. | |||
|  | 
 | |||
|  | JT65 signal reports are constrained to the range –1 to –30 dB. This | |||
|  | range is more than adequate for EME purposes, but not really enough | |||
|  | for optimum use at HF and below. S/N values displayed by the JT65 | |||
|  | decoder are clamped at an upper limit –1 dB. Moreover, the S/N scale | |||
|  | in present JT65 decoders is nonlinear above –10 dB. | |||
|  | 
 | |||
|  | By comparison, JT9 allows for signal reports in the range –50 to +49 | |||
|  | dB. It manages this by taking over a small portion of ``message | |||
|  | space'' that would otherwise be used for grid locators within 1 degree | |||
|  | of the south pole. The S/N scale of the present JT9 decoder is | |||
|  | reasonably linear (although it’s not intended to be a precision | |||
|  | measurement tool).   | |||
|  | 
 | |||
|  | With clean signals and a clean nose background, JT65 achieves nearly | |||
|  | 100% decoding down to S/N = –22 dB and about 50% at –24 dB. JT9 is | |||
|  | about 2 dB better, achieving 50% decoding at about –26 dB. Both modes | |||
|  | produce extremely low false-decode rates. | |||
|  | 
 | |||
|  | Early experience suggests that under most HF propagation conditions | |||
|  | the two modes have comparable reliability. The tone spacing of JT9 is | |||
|  | about two-thirds that of JT65, so in some disturbed ionospheric | |||
|  | conditions in the higher portion of the HF spectrum, JT65 may perform | |||
|  | better. | |||
|  | 
 | |||
|  | JT9 is an order of magnitude better in spectral efficiency. On a busy | |||
|  | HF band, the conventional 2-kHz-wide JT65 sub-band is often filled | |||
|  | with overlapping signals. Ten times as many JT9 signals can fit into | |||
|  | the same frequency range, without collisions. | |||
|  | 
 | |||
|  | JT65 signals often decode correctly even when they overlap. Such | |||
|  | behavior is much less likely with JT9 signals, which fill their occupied | |||
|  | bandwidth more densely. JT65 may also be more forgiving of small  | |||
|  | frequency drifts. |