Return-Path: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25])
by mtain-de01.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 91378380000DC;
Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:36:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14)
id 1TeTZ8-00054w-N3
for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:35:50 +0000
Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net)
by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14)
id 1TeTZ8-00054n-8n
for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:35:50 +0000
Received: from ppa04.princeton.edu ([128.112.128.215])
by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.77)
(envelope-from <joe@Princeton.EDU>)
id 1TeTZ6-0006YZ-DH
for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:35:49 +0000
Received: from csgsmtp200l.Princeton.EDU (csgsmtp200l.Princeton.EDU [128.112.130.131])
by ppa04.Princeton.EDU (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qAUGZkv6025721
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT)
for <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:35:46 -0500
Received: from [128.112.84.206] (phy-joe.Princeton.EDU [128.112.84.206])
(authenticated bits=0)
by csgsmtp200l.Princeton.EDU (8.13.8/8.12.9) with ESMTP id qAUGZkCl024546
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT)
for <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:35:46 -0500
Message-ID: <50B8E062.2000200@princeton.edu>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:35:46 -0500
From: Joe Taylor <joe@Princeton.EDU>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <50B8C724.7070906@princeton.edu> <50B8D81D.1010306@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
In-Reply-To: <50B8D81D.1010306@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.9.8185,1.0.431,0.0.0000
definitions=2012-11-30_13:2012-11-30,2012-11-30,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=quarantine_notspam policy=quarantine score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0
suspectscore=1 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam
adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=6.0.2-1203120001
definitions=main-1211300140
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ppa04.Princeton.EDU id qAUGZkv6025721
X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--)
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has
identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.
Content preview: Hi Stefan On 11/30/2012 11:00 AM, Stefan Schäfer wrote: >
Hi Joe/K1JT, > > A general question to the NB: What do you think about its
performance in > the current state? Normally NB is disabled when starting
the program. > Applying a NB to "remove" QRN makes a big effect on LF, you
know. > Is there an estimation like 2 dB improvement or so? [...]
Content analysis details: (-2.7 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
-2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, medium
trust
[128.112.128.215 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain
X-Scan-Signature: a6b6ffaf48fdddf1ed5c25dc4bf03ee1
Subject: Re: LF: WSJT-X v0.5 r2788
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=LINES_OF_YELLING,
LINES_OF_YELLING_2,REMOVE_IN_QUOTES autolearn=no version=2.63
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
x-aol-global-disposition: G
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d40c950b8e0a061be
X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25
X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none
Hi Stefan
On 11/30/2012 11:00 AM, Stefan Sch=E4fer wrote:
> Hi Joe/K1JT,
>
> A general question to the NB: What do you think about its performance i=
n
> the current state? Normally NB is disabled when starting the program.
> Applying a NB to "remove" QRN makes a big effect on LF, you know.
> Is there an estimation like 2 dB improvement or so?
So far I have spent very little time testing or optimizing the WSJT-X=20
noise blanker.
Here are some relevant examples from a week ago on 80 meters. The same=20
recorded raw data has been decoded twice using WSJT-X r2788. Everything=20
was the same for the two cases, except for switching NB OFF or ON.
UTC Sync dB DT Freq Drift Message
-------------------------------------------------
2156 5 -26 0.3 1349. -1 K1JT G0MGM -09 (NB OFF)
2158 4 -25 0.2 1349. 0 K1JT G0MGM RRR (NB OFF)
2156 9 -22 0.3 1349. -1 K1JT G0MGM -09 (NB ON)
2158 4 -22 0.2 1349. 0 K1JT G0MGM RRR (NB ON)
2200 4 -22 0.1 1346. 1 K1JT I3VWK JN55 (NB OFF)
2200 5 -21 0.1 1346. 1 K1JT I3VWK JN55 (NB ON)
Although there's some suggestion that the present noise blanker can=20
improve S/N by 1 to 4 dB, this is hardly a definitive result.
If you have some useful example files with a marginal JT9 signal and=20
heavy QRN, please send them along! I may find some time to work on the=20
noise blanker soon.
-- 73, Joe, K1JT
PS: alas, I listened for your LF signal on 137.42 last night, but did=20
not copy anything.
=09