Today I downloaded the latest WSPR software onto the new Win 8.1 PC. At first I could not understand why it refused to TX. Doh! Then I remembered to input VOX, the callsign, grid and audio interface details! All now seems to be working but no Es spots yet.
 |
| WSPR-X running WSPR2 on Win 8.1 PC |
An advantage of the later software is the waterfall is in real time (it moves DURING the 2 minute time slot so activity is instantly visible rather than having to wait 2 minutes to see. It also supports the slower, but even more sensitive, 15 minute version WSPR-15 as long as the TX stability is good enough. I tried this on LF before but my LO drift was too poor (old PC and old QTH).
 |
| Bottom FT817ND on 10m WSPR-2 |
I shall stick with this latest version today to see how it performs. I expect the RX sensitivity is unchanged unless it uses improved algorithms for decoding.
3 comments:
I like wsprx but it is a dead end experimental branch. The latest version is WSPR4. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/wsjtgroup/conversations/messages/12797
But neither works cleanly with DAX audio from the Flex-6300! And I can't bring myself to use wires at the moment.
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/wsjtgroup/conversations/messages/12794.
Hi Larry and all,
W7IUV wrote:
> Recently I have been using WSPR-X for 630 meter band monitoring of the
> experimental stations. While I like the user interface better than the
> old WSPR ver 2.11, it seems to have a few issues. ...
Thanks for your report.
Nobody is presently working on WSPR-X. It was developed as an
experimental offshoot of WSPR, while I was exploring some different
programming techniques and tools.
As it see it, the only good motivation for using WSPR-X right now is
that it offers an extra-slow mode, WSPR-15. As far as I'm aware, there
is little or no use of WSPR-15, on any band. (Perhaps I am wrong?)
Is there some reason why WSPR 2.12 does not do what you want?
At present the active development branch is WSPR 4.0. Quite a few
people are using this version, having compiled it for themselves.
-- 73, Joe, K1JT
Thanks Bob. Sounds like I should go back to the standard version then.
Post a Comment