Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.66.221.10 with SMTP id qa10csp66512pac; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:20:07 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.194.121.129 with SMTP id lk1mr8392wjb.80.1392240006867; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:20:06 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id wx10si12477498wjc.17.2014.02.12.13.20.06 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:20:06 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) client-ip=195.171.43.25; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) smtp.mail=owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1WDh9T-0002H8-RS for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:15:27 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1WDh9T-0002Gs-C8 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:15:27 +0000 Received: from mout1.freenet.de ([195.4.92.91]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (UNKNOWN:AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1WDh9R-0003b5-P0 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:15:26 +0000 Received: from [195.4.92.142] (helo=mjail2.freenet.de) by mout1.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (port 25) (Exim 4.80.1 #4) id 1WDh9Q-0002mq-IA for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 22:15:24 +0100 Received: from localhost ([::1]:43786 helo=mjail2.freenet.de) by mjail2.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (Exim 4.80.1 #4) id 1WDh9Q-00062a-DE for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 22:15:24 +0100 Received: from mx5.freenet.de ([195.4.92.15]:36786) by mjail2.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (Exim 4.80.1 #4) id 1WDh6i-0006R7-Cu for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 22:12:36 +0100 Received: from blfd-4d08f946.pool.mediaways.net ([77.8.249.70]:1919 helo=[192.168.178.21]) by mx5.freenet.de with esmtpsa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (port 465) (Exim 4.80.1 #4) id 1WDh6i-00034l-3R for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 22:12:36 +0100 Message-ID: <52FBE3C3.5020709@freenet.de> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 22:12:35 +0100 From: wolf_dl4yhf User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <89DADEA5A2EE4F52900427FF9563DD31@IBM7FFA209F07C> <52FBDCA4.7060606@broadpark.no> <52FBDEDF.30000@broadpark.no> In-Reply-To: <52FBDEDF.30000@broadpark.no> X-Originated-At: 77.8.249.70!1919 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) 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 Steinar, It would be very interesting to compare JT9-1 against WSQ2... and for that purpose, using a common "dial" frequency (474.2) would allow listeners to monitor two (or even more) modes, WSQ2, JT9, JT65, WSPR with only one receiver and only one soundcard / PC. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [195.4.92.91 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (dl4yhf[at]freenet.de) -0.7 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: 1c38f63d01970a2bf149f660c9cb2a37 Subject: Re: LF: WSQ2 Frequencies? 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 Hi Steinar, It would be very interesting to compare JT9-1 against WSQ2... and for that purpose, using a common "dial" frequency (474.2) would allow listeners to monitor two (or even more) modes, WSQ2, JT9, JT65, WSPR with only one receiver and only one soundcard / PC. So far, only funny looking thin white worms are creeping over the screen here. Btw, I'm not so convinced about the superiority of WSQ2 over the block modes, and cannot understand the argument why FEC (and a bit of redundancy in a block code) doesn't help. Maybe just a lack of insight on this side, but sure it's fun to try and compare. Thanks for the pointer and the test. 73, Wolf DL4YHF . Am 12.02.2014 21:51, schrieb Steinar Aanesland: > Well, I will use "LA5VNA/B" first to see if someone can copy me at all.. > > LA5VNA S > > > > > On 12.02.2014 21:42, Steinar Aanesland wrote: >> Hi all >> >> I will be calling CQ on 473.2 in WSQ2 this evening. >> >> LA5VNA S >> >> >> >> >> >> On 12.02.2014 21:02, Chris wrote: >>> Hi All LF, >>> Anybody know what frequencies on 472kHz and 137kHz band to monitor for anybody trying the WSQ mode? >>> Thanks, 73, Chris, G4AYT. >>> >> >> >> >> > > > >