![]() Sampling frequency: as per Nyquist-Shannon theorem en./wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem it is possible to fully recover signal from samples if sampling frequency is twice greater than signal frequency. In some cases 24-bit resolution can bring advantage if levels being not matched well, in such scenario 16-bit audio stream can get intermodulation products while 24-bit stream will provide greater dynamic range capacity for unmatched levels applied to ADC. Regarding AF frequency good sound card can take samples from analog signal where each sample has 24-bit resolution.īuilt in transceiver audio codecs are usually ‘poor man’s’ HW with 16-bit resolution as most transceivers have less than 90dB IMD3 dynamic range and 24-bit resolution can be useless there. Sampling initially came from analog to digital signal conversion. ![]() Igor UA3DJY, the JTDX author has tried to explain further: So to answer your question, if you prefer WSJTx then I think that is fine, stay with it.ĭespite clarification, there is still some mis-understandings being aired on Facebook. ![]() Therefore the UMA addition giving JTDX 32 bit info is, as always, just to provide as complete a picture of what is available to EE product owners and should not be taken as any endorsement on my part. ![]() As for 32bit, so far only theoretical data has been published but it shows a strong liklihood of more completed QSOs when a band is saturated with signals and the radio, like ours, can take advantage of the increased sampling. JTDX is a clear winner even at the previous 16bit versions. The JTDX author and a small team of testers run the tests and publish decoding comparison tables - the number of decodes per period on average. ![]() Hello Jean-Marie, I have to say that I prefer JTDX but I have no data of my own in respect of comparisons with WSJTx. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |