Return-Path: X-Spam-DCC: paranoid 1233; Body=2 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on lipkowski.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL, HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TITLE_EMPTY,RATWARE_GECKO_BUILD autolearn=no version=3.1.3 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by paranoid.lipkowski.org (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id t5REc5AE002387 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 16:38:05 +0200 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Z8rBv-0003Va-Ak for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:34:47 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Z8rBu-0003VR-Uu for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:34:46 +0100 Received: from mx02.posteo.de ([89.146.194.165]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1Z8rBs-0002G2-Tp for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:34:45 +0100 Received: from dovecot04.posteo.de (unknown [185.67.36.27]) by mx02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FCC825AF536 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 16:34:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.posteo.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dovecot04.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3mJczl0Sj5zFpVy for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 16:34:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <558EB482.8020900@posteo.de> Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 16:34:42 +0200 From: DK7FC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <8D27C7D3E7D6748-14A8-F71B3@webmail-vm149.sysops.aol.com> <558D8FEC.2090102@posteo.de> <7D39EA36066C485998744D9E994DAC52@White> <558DC2A1.2040608@posteo.de> <558EA358.80701@posteo.de> In-Reply-To: <558EA358.80701@posteo.de> X-Scan-Signature: 860e51ceecdf98b32e8eba101d9d472d Subject: LF: WSPR testing with and without SpecLab NB to the same time Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080204070302090809010807" 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-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 10.1.3.10 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 3545 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080204070302090809010807 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, Maybe some of the stronger MF stations could provide a WSPR signal? In the evening it would help as well... I'm now running a local WSPR QRPPP test in heavy QRN. 2 WSPR instances are running simultaneously, getting their signal from 2 different VAC instances, from the same RF source. One is using a SpecLab's NB, the other not. Between the QRN bursts i can see a clear strong signal, about 20 dB SNR in 1 Hz. The reports from the different WSPR instances are quite low though! One the WSPR instance having the NB in front of, the SNR reported is arround -23 dB, the other does not decode anything! Some QRO led to decodes on the WSPR instance which has no NB. The reported SNR was 13 dB lower! The was in strong QRN. Now the QRN level falls and the SNR difference varies a bit. It will be interesting to see what the difference will be in a "normal" QRN level... See this for a better understanding: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19882028/MF/WSPR%20test.png 73, Stefan Am 27.06.2015 15:21, schrieb DK7FC: > Hello Markus, > > Am 27.06.2015 14:12, schrieb Markus Vester: >> - WSPR: Last night, 21 of my low-power WSPR transmissions were >> decoded simultaneously by DK7FC/p and DK7FC. On average, the /p >> receiver had a 5.67 dB SNR advantage. For my direction, the receive >> loop and the T antenna seem to have performed similarly. >> Today between 11.08 and 11:24 I sent some more SNR sequences with >> higher power (0.1 W EMRP), expecting a higher SNR difference in the >> lower daytime background noise. However half of the transmissions >> were not decoded on either grabber, and those that were picked up by >> both showed only a small advantage. This is probably due to the >> strong QRN from flashes from a nearby thunderstorm, which for some >> reason are heavily affecting WSPR decodes. It might help to use >> effective noise blanking in the SpecLab instance which is feeding >> WSPR. Anyway if the statics happen to ease off I will attempt another >> daytime comparison later today. > > I have now arranged VAC3 and a second WSPR-2 instance, appearing as > DK7FC/PNB (portable, noise blanker). The QRN is extreme now!!! It > would be very interesting to compare both WSPR instances now. > > Now, better explained: > -The Raspi sends the vorbis data stream via WLAN to the web. > - SpecLab is reading the stream directly, generates the upper > spectrogram of the grabber page and feeds the stream in stereo mode to > VAC1. > - Another SpecLab instance reads the stream from VAC1 (reading from > the Raspi stream would mean another client for the Raspi, leading to > twice the CPU load, which is impossible) makes the frequency > conversion (474.2 kHz "dial") and SSB/USB filter and feeds the output > to VAC2 > - The first WSPR-2 instance (DK7FC/p) reads the input of VAC2 > - All other normal spectrograms (QRSS-30...) are reading from VAC1 > - Now that's new: Another SpecLab instance reading from VAC1 again, > preparing for WSPR, f-conversion, filter PLUS NB!, feeding to VAC3 > - A second WSPR-2 instance reading from VAC3, appearing as DK7FC/PNB > > Help, now the thunderstorm is coming closer!!!!! The grabber is just > white! > > 73, Stefan --------------080204070302090809010807 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all,

Maybe some of the stronger MF stations could provide a WSPR signal? In the evening it would help as well...

I'm now running a local WSPR QRPPP test in heavy QRN. 2 WSPR instances are running simultaneously, getting their signal from 2 different VAC instances, from the same RF source. One is using a SpecLab's NB, the other not.
Between the QRN bursts i can see a clear strong signal, about 20 dB SNR in 1 Hz. The reports from the different WSPR instances are quite low though!
One the WSPR instance having the NB in front of, the SNR reported is arround -23 dB, the other does not decode anything!
Some QRO led to decodes on the WSPR instance which has no NB. The reported SNR was 13 dB lower! The was in strong QRN.
Now the QRN level falls and the SNR difference varies a bit. It will be interesting to see what the difference will be in a "normal" QRN level...
See this for a better understanding: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19882028/MF/WSPR%20test.png

73, Stefan

Am 27.06.2015 15:21, schrieb DK7FC:
Hello Markus,

Am 27.06.2015 14:12, schrieb Markus Vester:
- WSPR: Last night, 21 of my low-power WSPR transmissions were decoded simultaneously by DK7FC/p and DK7FC. On average, the /p receiver had a 5.67 dB SNR advantage. For my direction, the receive loop and the T antenna seem to have performed similarly.
 
Today between 11.08 and 11:24 I sent some more SNR sequences with higher power (0.1 W EMRP), expecting a higher SNR difference in the lower daytime background noise. However half of the transmissions were not decoded on either grabber, and those that were picked up by both showed only a small advantage. This is probably due to the strong QRN from flashes from a nearby thunderstorm, which for some reason are heavily affecting WSPR decodes. It might help to use effective noise blanking in the SpecLab instance which is feeding WSPR. Anyway if the statics happen to ease off I will attempt another daytime comparison later today.

I have now arranged VAC3 and a second WSPR-2 instance, appearing as DK7FC/PNB (portable, noise blanker). The QRN is extreme now!!! It would be very interesting to compare both WSPR instances now.

Now, better explained:
-The Raspi sends the vorbis data stream via WLAN to the web.
- SpecLab is reading the stream directly, generates the upper spectrogram of the grabber page and feeds the stream in stereo mode to VAC1.
- Another SpecLab instance reads the stream from VAC1 (reading from the Raspi stream would mean another client for the Raspi, leading to twice the CPU load, which is impossible) makes the frequency conversion (474.2 kHz "dial") and SSB/USB filter and feeds the output to VAC2
- The first WSPR-2 instance (DK7FC/p) reads the input of VAC2
- All other normal spectrograms (QRSS-30...) are reading from VAC1
- Now that's new: Another SpecLab instance reading from VAC1 again, preparing for WSPR, f-conversion, filter PLUS NB!, feeding to VAC3
- A second WSPR-2 instance reading from VAC3, appearing as DK7FC/PNB

Help, now the thunderstorm is coming closer!!!!! The grabber is just white!

73, Stefan
--------------080204070302090809010807--