G4KLX wrote:There is absolutely nothing wrong with the deep search algorithm. It uses the well known and mathematically proven technique of correlation (AKA matched filter). The people who complain about it are those not technically capable of understanding it, and a number of very vocal but ill informed people have given it a bad name, undeservedly.
So the new deep search algorithm has nothing to do with what is described for example in http://www.sm2cew.com/Digital%20communications%20using%20minimal%20transfer.pdf
? What a relief!
BTW the above link was one of the first few results Google produced for "wsjt "deep search"", the link to it is published (together with some other interesting reading) on http://www.sm2cew.com/jt65.html
. Having read these few articles I haven't quite got the impression the JT65-non-believers are so lacking the technical capability to understand it...
On another note, are you deliberately muddying the proverbial waters in your reply or am I just not reading your article right? I can't recall the issue of maths utilised being referred to anywhere in this thread, what the posters are complaining is that the software is trying to "guess" the callsigns in a QSO (or in white noise) by using a predefined list of valid callsigns. Is your point that the latest & greatest WSJT no longer does (or should I rather say "depends on") this?