Message-ID: <5092AEF4.5010809@psk31.plus.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 17:18:44 +0000
From: g3zjo <g3zjo@psk31.plus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <508D92BE.2040500@broadpark.no> <508ED047.1000504@broadpark.no> <CAHAQVWPFQdJQxMtkvzOvGZ-SbzGk3WTptmvMqDzBqpECjzjpgQ@mail.gmail.com> <508EEDA9.7070905@princeton.edu> <50901CB0.2040405@princeton.edu> <50917D09.2030908@princeton.edu> <509299E8.7010608@princeton.edu> <50929E53.50006@psk31.plus.com>
In-Reply-To: <50929E53.50006@psk31.plus.com>
Subject: Re: LF: Soundcard issues
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Well done the check, see the Screen shots 20 odd dB difference between 
WSPR2 and WSPR2 11 I take it WSPR3 is the same?

If you can get the shots Tiny Pic runs on steam just lately.

http://i48.tinypic.com/bvo75.jpg

http://i49.tinypic.com/2upbukh.jpg

Eddie

On 01/11/2012 16:07, g3zjo wrote:
> Hi Joe / LF
>> On my development system the same input level is required to make 
>> both WSPR and WSJT-X happy.  Likewise on my shack computer.  For 
>> example, see the screen shot posted at
>> http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/WSJTX_WSPR.png
>>
> Interesting that when I talk of WSPR levels I refer to WSPR2.
> Someone sent me a screen Grab the other day Just like the one you 
> show, but of WSPR2 and WSJT-X, that grab confirmed that when WSPR2 
> shows 0dB,  WSJTX is right up the top of the scale just like I 
> experience. They added that WSPR2 11 has the same, their words, 
> ridiculously high, sound levels.
> I have never tried it will down load it now.
>
> Eddie G3ZJO
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2441/5366 - Release Date: 10/31/12
>
>