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;
MIME-version: 1.0
Message-id: <53067122.90105@broadpark.no>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 22:18:26 +0100
From: Steinar Aanesland <saanes@broadpark.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/24.3.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <728ab.22f842d6.402d5511@aol.com> <52FBFDC2.3060700@freenet.de>
In-reply-to: <52FBFDC2.3060700@freenet.de>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Subject: Re: LF: CQ CQ DL4YHF WSQ2
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

Hi  Wolf

Any news about new version of WSQ ?

LA5VNA


On 13.02.2014 00:03, wolf_dl4yhf wrote:
 > Hi Nicolas,
 >
 > Am 12.02.2014 23:52, schrieb F4DTL@aol.com:
 >> quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog
 >>
 >> dl4yhf
 >> ...-.-
 >> cq cq ddl4yhfd4yh e k
 >> *F4DTL Nicolas*
 >
 > *Ok, I was inspired for that sentence when reading the WSQ help pages 
:-)*
 >
 > btw Murray ZL1BPU has answered my questions regarding notch filter, 
guess he won't mind relaying his entire message here.
 > Note the last sentence.
 >
 > Cheers,
 >   Wolf.
 >
 > -----
 >
 > Wolf,
 > I can read the rsgb_lf_group reflector, but not post to it (problem 
getting them to change my login). I am pleased to note your interest in 
WSQ2. I can hopefully answer your questions about it works.
 > First, there is no notch filter, so if there are interfering 
carriers, you'll need to QSY. Not ideal, I know, but with no error 
correction with a puncturing function there would still be no way to 
recover from all the errors. The source code is available, so if you 
want to try, you could add a notch filter.
 > The important reason behind not using FEC is TYPING SPEED. We 
designed it for 5WPM. WSQ2 is intended to be a QSO mode, like CW. If 
there are errors, you ask for repeats. In our experience (we also tested 
WSQ with FEC), for the same text speed, there is little difference 
between reception quality of 0.5 baud with no FEC, and 0.25 baud with 
standard NASA convolutional coding FEC. The big difference was that the 
FEC version was of course much slower. Yes, the FEC version had slightly 
fewer errors at around --24dB SNR, but it dropped out at --25 just like 
the non-FEC version.
 > Exactly the same situation applies when you compare DominoEX4 with 
THOR8. Similar sensitivity, but double the speed. It's all about the 
integration time -- the slower symbol rate has an impulse noise 
rejection advantage as well as a sensitivity advantage.
 > You have to realize that WSQ2 is designed as a real-time QSO mode, it 
is not for beaconing or propagation measurement. Sure, you need slightly 
more signal than for WSPR, but you can have a real QSO with a real 
person. FEC, and especially block modes, don't lend themselves to this 
level of operating freedom.
 > If anyone on the rsgb reflector has any questions about the mode, 
please point them in my direction.
 > 73,
 > Murray ZL1BPU
 >
 >
 >