Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mi02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id E824938000089; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:55:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TeUJd-0005Nq-Jh for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:23:53 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TeUJd-0005Nh-54 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:23:53 +0000 Received: from ppa03.princeton.edu ([128.112.128.214]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TeUJb-0006lV-8W for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:23:52 +0000 Received: from csgsmtp200l.Princeton.EDU (csgsmtp200l.Princeton.EDU [128.112.130.131]) by ppa03.princeton.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qAUHNnOV023109 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:23:49 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.3] (pool-96-235-189-92.cmdnnj.fios.verizon.net [96.235.189.92] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by csgsmtp200l.Princeton.EDU (8.13.8/8.12.9) with ESMTP id qAUHNm2e024958 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:23:49 -0500 Message-ID: <50B8EBA4.1050108@princeton.edu> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:23:48 -0500 From: Joe Taylor User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <50B8C724.7070906@princeton.edu> <50B8D81D.1010306@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <50B8E062.2000200@princeton.edu> <50B8E829.6060506@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> In-Reply-To: <50B8E829.6060506@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_15:2012-11-30,2012-11-30,1970-01-01 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-1211300155 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, > Well, the QRN on LF is quite different to that on HF. So probably the > optimised parameter settings (to be found) will be quite different as > well. Yes. That's why I have encouraged you and others to send me a few example files of marginal JT9 signals in the presence of significant QRN. [...] 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 [128.112.128.214 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: 7001055fa59a9c23b9831ea6d317a074 Subject: Re: LF: WSJT-X v0.5 r2788 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none 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: 3039ac1d7b8a50b8f3181f8a X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hi Stefan, > Well, the QRN on LF is quite different to that on HF. So probably the > optimised parameter settings (to be found) will be quite different as > well. Yes. That's why I have encouraged you and others to send me a few example files of marginal JT9 signals in the presence of significant QRN. > For serious (serious is relative) LF DX, JT9-10 and JT9-30 will be > preferred, also in contrast to HF. Maybe yes, maybe no. If typically there is significant QSB over 10 or 30 minutes, it may be better to use shorter transmissions and allow the decoder to average several of them. (This capability is not yet present in the JT9 decoder, but it works very well in JT65.) Transmissions of 10 or 30 minutes are fine for beacon work, but are extremely tedious for most QSO purposes. > PS: Another idea: If there are some RX stations who like to do some > tests, we could try to run 2 instances of WSJT-X, one with and one > without the NB. Maybe it requires to install the program twice, in > separate folders A much better course of action is to make recordings from which NB optimizations can be made. I make no special claims for the present noise blanker, beyond the fact that it does (at some level) work. -- 73, Joe, K1JT