[Elecraft] FT8 - was "On Second Thought, I'll Take The Stairs"

[Lyn Norstad]

That's one of the great things about Amateur Radio.  There is literally something for everyone.

73
Lyn, W0LEN


-----Original Message-----
From: elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Drew AF2Z
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 9:57 AM
To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] FT8 - was "On Second Thought, I'll Take The Stairs"

Please- *nobody* is asking JT to save CW by giving us an extra 6-8 dB 
SNR. I hope that is not the next Goldilocks mode in the pipeline. I 
assume proponents of such a cobbled up "user interface" would feel 
perfectly justified in "sharing" even more CW frequency space? No thanks.

73,
Drew
AF2Z



On 07/12/20 20:57, David Gilbert wrote:
> 
> 
> Not quite.  I'm aware of JS8 and tried it more than a year ago, but it 
> still has much of the rigidity of the WSJT-X user interface and isn't as 
> basic as I think would be desirable.
> 
> Think of it this way ... CW works fine as both a contest mode, DXing 
> mode, and conversational mode.  Underlaying CW with a well configured 
> digital signal processing scheme like that which is under FT8, except 
> with a different user interface than either WSJT-X or JS8,  could be 
> equally versatile but with maybe 6-8 db better S/N ... possibly by an 
> even greater margin if the decoding allowed errors instead of being all 
> or nothing.
> 
> I'm not saying text-to-CW is the only way to reap the benefit of modern 
> digital signal processing ... only using it as an example.
> 
> People only interested in a contact will probably always prefer 
> WSJT-X/FT8 because it does that very well, but both contesting and rag 
> chewing could really use a different (simpler) structure while still 
> utilizing the superior weak signal peformance of modern digital signal 
> processing.  I guarantee that it is possible to do so.
> 
> 73,
> Dave   AB7E
> 
> 
> On 7/12/2020 6:18 PM, Lyn Norstad wrote:
>> Enter JS8Call.
>>
>> All the technology of FT8, plus all of the conversationality of CW, 
>> RTTY and SSB rolled into one.
>>
>> If you haven't tried it, you really should.  It's developer, Jordan 
>> Sherer (KN4CRD) has done a terrific job with it and I am honored to 
>> have been a part of the beta team almost since day one.
>>
>> http://js8call.com/
>>
>> 73
>> Lyn, W0LEN
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net 
>> [mailto:elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of David Gilbert
>> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2020 7:40 PM
>> To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>> Subject: [Elecraft] FT8 - was "On Second Thought, I'll Take The Stairs"
>>
>>
>> Well, the fact is that the coding and processing behind modes like FT8
>> doesn't have to be as rigid as is implemented in WSJT-X.  It only
>> requires that information be sent and received in time frames, and those
>> time frames are simply a function of three variables ... bandwidth,
>> rate, and number of characters in the message frame.  It would be
>> possible to change any of those, such as widening the bandwidth to
>> increase the number of characters for the same time frame.
>>
>> It would also be possible to send text but have it converted to CW on
>> the other end.  Or even to key CW that gets converted to text before
>> transmission ... i.e., CW to CW except with significantly better S/N
>> performance.  If the user was willing to live with a narrow bandwidth
>> single conversation format, clock synchronization isn't even really
>> needed.   And if we were willing to live with a single conversation
>> format, there would be no point in cramming everyone into 2.4 KHz and we
>> could spread out like we do for every other mode.
>>
>> I'm no expert, but I think that the coding could have enough error
>> checking to allow busted message frames to be printed (or converted to
>> CW) ... although of course with errors.  The extra error processing
>> would reduce the character count, though, all other things being equal.
>>
>> The point is that the digital signal processing behind FT8 is extremely
>> powerful and could be adapted to other user formats with a lot more
>> flexibility than we have with FT8.  The hams who just dismiss FT8 out of
>> hand really don't understand the broader weak signal applicability of it.
>>
>> 73,
>> Dave   AB7E
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/12/2020 4:53 PM, Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT wrote:
>>> Yeah, great, reliable at or below the noise floor, but if all you're
>>> doing is meeting the somewhat arbitrary minimum that defines a QSO,
>>> what's the point?
>>>
>>> I mean seriously, can you even ask about the weather?  Just say "hi?"
>>>
>>> Meh.
>>>
>>> I'm fine with typing, but I want a real live person typing back, and
>>> if we can type back and forth for an hour, that's great.
>>>
>>> 73 -- Lynn
>>>
>>> On 7/12/20 2:33 PM, Wayne Burdick wrote:
>>>> The argument for digital modes like FT8 is that they're reliable at
>>>> or below the noise floor, making it possible to work lots of DX even
>>>> if solar conditions are very poor. Simplicity of protocol is a side
>>>> effect of this design.