Message-ID: <5A940927.5020201@posteo.de>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 14:18:31 +0100
From: DK7FC <selberdenken@posteo.de>
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: <22427f06-486d-f7fd-965f-70ed200d2b8d@n1bug.com>
In-Reply-To: <22427f06-486d-f7fd-965f-70ed200d2b8d@n1bug.com>
Subject: Re: LF: WSJT-X 1.9 vs 1.8 WSPR decoding test
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

Hello Paul,

Thanks for the useful test and encouraging results. Very useful for the 
community. I will QSY to the new version due to your results.

TNX, 73, Stefan


Am 26.02.2018 13:57, schrieb N1BUG:
> Yesterday's release of WSJT-X 1.9.0rc2 came with this note: "Improved 
> decoding performance for WSPR mode, especially effective at LF and 
> MF". I wanted to put this to the test so overnight I ran four 
> instances of WSJT-X:
>
> 1.8.0 on both LF and MF using the call sign N1BUG/1
>
> 1.9.0rc2 on both LF and MF using the call sign N1BUG
>
> All spots were uploaded to WSPRnet.
>
> Both decoders on LF were fed the same audio stream. The setup is a 
> simple SDR providing I/Q input to a physical sound card, HDSDR 
> software output into a virtual audio cable, both versions of WSJT-X 
> taking input from the output of that virtual cable.
>
> The MF setup was the same except using a different SDR feeding a 
> different physical sound card.
>
> I used identical settings in all four instances of WSJT-X with the 
> exception of different input audio source (virtual cable) for LF and MF.
>
> All of this was running in Windows 10.
>
> I watched incoming spots very closely for the first several hours. 
> There was not much activity on LF at the time but on MF I saw 1.9 
> decode many WSPR transmissions that 1.8 failed to decode. Some of 
> these were extreme weak signal down to -32 with barely visible traces 
> on the waterfall. Others were not with some clearly visible and 
> decoding up to -23 in 1.9, yet no decode in 1.8 despite being very 
> clear on the waterfall in that version. I did not see a single 
> instance where 1.8 decoded something that 1.9 failed to decode.
>
> This morning I took a quick look at statistics:
>
> MF - During a 12 hour period ending 1145z, 1.9 decoded a total of 933 
> WSPR transmissions while 1.8 decoded only 883.
>
> LF - During a 12 hour period ending 1150z, 1.9 decoded 253 WSPR 
> transmissions while 1.8 decoded only 183.
>
> In all of this I do not see any obvious spurious decodes from either 
> version. No strange call signs or stations displaced on the map from 
> where you would expect them to be.
>
> I was not expecting to see such a large difference. I make no claim 
> that this result is representative of what others will see. I am 
> simply reporting the results of an experiment carried out here.
>
> 73,
> Paul N1BUG
>