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=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL, HTML_40_50,HTML_MESSAGE,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 t7NNFgsV021960 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 01:15:42 +0200 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1ZTeRO-0003sJ-4q for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 00:12:42 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1ZTeRN-0003sA-RZ for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 00:12:41 +0100 Received: from mx02.posteo.de ([89.146.194.165]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ZTeQJ-0001ol-MC for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 00:12:40 +0100 Received: from dovecot04.posteo.de (unknown [185.67.36.27]) by mx02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6710F22B47E7 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 01:11:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.posteo.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dovecot04.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3mzslc1F9RzFpW0 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 01:11:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <55DA531B.7000201@posteo.de> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 01:11:23 +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: <1450944D2563430FBFDFC41F0C27432C@AGB> <55D917DC.3030206@posteo.de> <55DA09C0.7040407@no3m.net> <26DFFCAE71834363A5151450F1E96059@AGB> <55DA1737.2030605@no3m.net> <54DED26E6C7A45FD9447C9CF327159AA@AGB> <55DA2428.2030202@no3m.net> <55DA4905.2080102@posteo.de> <55DA4FD9.8000306@no3m.net> In-Reply-To: <55DA4FD9.8000306@no3m.net> X-Scan-Signature: 24b65a258fa7a3a87cfdaa03bb2f3176 Subject: Re: LF: last 12 Hours on 477 OP8 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030107060609010905090209" 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: 3970 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030107060609010905090209 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Eric, Am 24.08.2015 00:57, schrieb Eric NO3M: > Stefan > > I think the decoder "sensitivity" is still the same, however, the > two-pass method employs signal subtraction on the second pass, > removing signals associated with stations decoded in the first pass. > This clears the way for stations that may have been missed in the > first pass, including stations close to a strong station or even > stations on the same QRG (as shown in my previous post). On average, > I think there are 10-15% (or more) decodes than with the standard > decoder. It's pretty crazy to decode two guys on the same offset that > are 12-13 dB different in SNR! Thanks for the informations! I will test it! > > If you run Linux [...] Not yet. Just on my Raspberry. But it won't take to long any more... 73, Stefan > > 73 Eric NO3M / WG2XJM > > On 08/23/2015 06:28 PM, DK7FC wrote: >> Hi Eric, >> >> Am 23.08.2015 21:51, schrieb Eric NO3M: >>> [...] WSJT-X (which also now includes WSPR with two-pass, signal >>> subtraction decoder by K9AN). >> Does this have any advantage i.e. a better decode performance then >> WSPR-X? >> >>> At any rate... anxious for conditions to settle and start getting >>> some TA action. >> A good idea! >> I'm on air as well but i do not expect much this time of the year. >> >> 73, Stefan > --------------030107060609010905090209 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Eric,

Am 24.08.2015 00:57, schrieb Eric NO3M:
Stefan

I think the decoder "sensitivity" is still the same, however, the two-pass method employs signal subtraction on the second pass, removing signals associated with stations decoded in the first pass.  This clears the way for stations that may have been missed in the first pass, including stations close to a strong station or even stations on the same QRG (as shown in my previous post).  On average, I think there are 10-15% (or more) decodes than with the standard decoder.  It's pretty crazy to decode two guys on the same offset that are 12-13 dB different in SNR!

Thanks for the informations! I will test it!

If you run Linux [...]
Not yet. Just on my Raspberry. But it won't take to long any more...
73, Stefan


73 Eric NO3M / WG2XJM

On 08/23/2015 06:28 PM, DK7FC wrote:
Hi Eric,

Am 23.08.2015 21:51, schrieb Eric NO3M:
[...] WSJT-X (which also now includes WSPR with two-pass, signal subtraction decoder by K9AN).
Does this have any advantage i.e. a better decode performance then WSPR-X?

At any rate... anxious for conditions to settle and start getting some TA action.
A good idea!
I'm on air as well but i do not expect much this time of the year.

73, Stefan

--------------030107060609010905090209--