Hi All. I am very much puzzled that we have not heard from European stations, especially big guns that work only JT65b. Older hardware used by some of the larger stations is certainly part of the issue, but I think it goes beyond that. 23cm has 9 times the signal spreading that 2 meters has so when looking at JT65 shorthand signals they will be smeared out over a wider range of frequencies making them harder to see on the waterfall. This puts JT65 at a disadvantage on 23cm. A good example of the spreading problem is when working CW on aurora on 2 meters. A very narrow filter simply would not work in that case because much of the signal would be outside of the bandwidth of a narrow filter. If it was simply that people are resistant to change, then this would apply at 23cm as well. There is another thing about 23cm too. On 23cm most users have far more signal margin than we do on 2 meters. Indeed far more of them can work each other on SSB than the handful of us on 2 meters. The differences between bands go on. On 23cm circular polarization is transmitted so they don't have to worry about decode timing and switching TX polarity in time for the next transmission in case it becomes obvious you were not copied. This means that slower computers would not be such a handicap on 23cm since the beginning of the transmission would not change even if you change the message a few seconds into your transmission. There are good ways and questionable ways to compare JT65b and Q65 60a on 2 meter EME. 1) You can't go by the level of the synce tone on the waterfall. Q65 has a weaker sync tone by design. 2) You can't really go by db level to tell if you are copying weaker signals or not. The db calibration is not really that accurate or repeatable when comparing anything to anything. 3) You can't go by recordings because you don't have any signal level reference. 4) You can't go by simulations because conditions will be different on 2 meter EME. 5) You can't go by how it works on other bands for reasons previously pointed out in the case of 23cm. 6) You can't even compare one mode on Map65 and the other mode on WSJTX because WSJTX will consistently beat Map65 for sensitivity in either mode and nearly all the time. I run them both side by side. In short, if you haven't been comparing on 2 meter EME who you can work on each mode and how consistently you can work them, then you really just don't know for sure which mode is better for 2 meter EME. Serge - You probably need to work that 200 watt station a few more times on both modes. There is easily 6db of QSB present from one hour to another. An interesting test might be to have two instances of WSJTX running with one on JT65b and the other on Q65 then ask the other station to alternate every other transmission between the two modes while calling CQ. You can move your array off the moon far enough that you lose copy on one mode or the other or more likely both. Once you have 5 or 10 transmissions from each mode at nearly the same time it should become clear as to how they compare. Also if your Windows 7 driver is working sufficiently on your Delta44 sound card in your Windows 7 computer, then you can install the latest WSJTX and Map65 and that should work the same. That driver only interfaces with the sound card and not the digital software. The latest WSJTX and Map65 are compatible with Windows 7. It might be a mistake for you to use Map65 exclusively on either mode. Lance - I never call a station I can't copy unless I am in a sked. I think if I did that on HF I would likely be black-listed. I have tried Q65 many times before and since there was significant Q65 activity today, I ran some experiments. One station was decoded at -25 and -27db but there were many more transmissions that were not decoded at all. No -30, -32 or -35s. They just weren't there. I later copied him fine ( a lot more decodes) on JT65b at between -25 and -30db on WSJTX. I asked if anyone was copying sub -30db on Q65 and WQ5S reported the same station at -31db. At that specific time slot I copied the same station at -25db. I think the sub -30db decodes on Q65 are more likely a result of something going wrong, like a noise burst rather than an indication of great sensitivity. Usually my decodes are only 2 or 3db better than his. To be sure if you can't or won't or don't know how to manage call3.txt then you should focus on Q65. I have never worked the wrong set of call letters due to a false decode. If I think KB8RQ called me and I try to call him he will simply not answer. The opposition to call3.txt is simply sour grapes and has no basis in technical reality. In fact if you want to call out a potential cheat, then maybe putting a known call in the DX station field to make AP work for you during a Q65 sked might be a small cheat, but certainly thousands of calls in a call3.txt database does not single out anyone. IMHO the opinion that Q65 is superior due to a lack of needed call3.txt database is invalid. I start with a full call3.txt file and add to it as people join the chat on the EME logger. That way when I call CQ, I have the full sensitivity that will get decodes down to -30db on WSJTX. I frequently work stations that are only copied on WSJTX but not on Map65. This is true for both Map65 and WSJTX. Once in a blue moon the reverse is also true. Today when I had that station at -25db and -27db on Q65, he simply was not present on Map65. I have seen and participated in a situation where someone is calling a new station endlessly on JT65b. I would suggest that if you can see that the new station is struggling to use JT65b properly then suggest a sked on Q65 120a. It will likely be a much faster QSO especially if he lacks an LNA, has noise, or did not know he should populate his call3.txt and keep it up to date. Or maybe he knows how to use FT8 but needs to learn the finer points of EME. There are stations using old hardware that prevent them from trying Q65. I think this group can help them painlessly update their capabilities but they will need to reach out to us for that help. I now use a fast computer so the late decodes of Q65 are less of a problem, but I still have to make a quick decision about what polarity to transmit. I think I get 2 seconds to make that decision and change. I very much like the shorthand messages of JT65b. I can usually log a contact half way through the other stations 73. It's important to learn to visually decode shorthand signals via the waterfall. Often that works when the decoder fails. If I could see clear first hand evidence that Q65 is better than JT65b on 2 meter EME by working stations on Q65 that I can not work on JT65b, I would probably use Q65 more. If Q65 were 3db better, I would know it right away and you likely would be hard pressed to get me to switch back to JT65b on 2 meter EME. And of course everything Joe said is correct. I just disagree with him about call3.txt being a problem. -- Earl Shaffer, WB9UWA My EME array photos https://www.dropbox.com/sh/bbn2ktonko8e3az/AACHBBOhf6Djk5Pf2c86Br5ja Detailed array photos http://www.gm4jjj.co.uk/WB9UWA/ Facebook http://www.facebook.com/earl.shaffer Linkedin http://www.linkedin.com/pub/earl-shaffer/12/881/735