Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by klubnl.pl (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id wAMNQXYZ010878 for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2018 00:26:34 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1gPyGG-0006kF-Ln for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 23:19:52 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1gPyEw-0006k6-TA for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 23:18:31 +0000 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91_59-0488984) (envelope-from ) id 1gPyEs-0006r5-IF for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 23:18:27 +0000 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C59916005D for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2018 00:18:21 +0100 (CET) X-DKIM-Result: Domain=posteo.de Result=Signature OK DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.de; s=2017; t=1542928704; bh=AE1qYLNLojy8nOQWuhfgYElFZjgwzaPqAesTIDHbCCY=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=A9wWuAIxmkizqIyNJ7iq1t+u4eG6bEAwtgQZns53wwaCai13AxQlH9yv+xnA0JxFR oyLc0Ojil5U7aDcYeHDGII8Wul1Yz64StkiYqgS0kYJJDNE2DF+SRmScBiDayel7W6 6sreVpfktNgcAwVGDr5z1e9n1ruPhmn6zH6zgadLqsDqmBDJC1TlJu+e77ps7ujeLf yR8vXm+N4FsUZP5oxA0ppgaKmnoG7wDsJbJSOu5SKLaBc1lejmJDFCmc2SCvFkkRir 4D02G1SJT9BIdWE89IL4Gies+L3Zhg2ddzq/Hpi46IawsRfXBk8mpMbOSC1AxjettW 1LZaMxrOcdcRg== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 431Fjn28DZz6tm6 for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2018 00:18:20 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <5BF7393C.3040509@posteo.de> Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 00:18:20 +0100 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: <6DB8451D7F3D3947A5918808A59621EA14E20EF0@servigilant.vigilant.local> In-Reply-To: <6DB8451D7F3D3947A5918808A59621EA14E20EF0@servigilant.vigilant.local> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Am 22.11.2018 22:49, schrieb VIGILANT Luis Fernández: > > 1. > 2. > 1. Is it clear that in practice WSPR-15 provides LF/MF decodes > at lower > 3. > S/N than WSPR-2? If so, ho much lower? > Certainly [...] Content analysis details: (-2.3 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust [185.67.36.65 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: 6be9408bcc63ba5aab6f1e66e2d5b7ce Subject: Re: LF: WSPR-15 in WSJT-X Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020002080308060805090005" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=HTML_60_70,HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_TITLE_EMPTY 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020002080308060805090005 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Am 22.11.2018 22:49, schrieb VIGILANT Luis Fernández: > > 1. > 2. > 1. Is it clear that in practice WSPR-15 provides LF/MF decodes > at lower > 3. > S/N than WSPR-2? If so, ho much lower? > Certainly yes. Of course! I've seen decodes at -41 dB shown in the database, and that was with the old decoder. One mustn't say LF/MF because there is a big difference. WSPR-15 would not perform good on 630m but on 2200m it does, as we can see these days. 73, Stefan --------------020002080308060805090005 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Am 22.11.2018 22:49, schrieb VIGILANT Luis Fernández:
  1.  
  2. 1. Is it clear that in practice WSPR-15 provides LF/MF decodes at lower
  3. S/N than WSPR-2? If so, ho much lower?
Certainly yes. Of course! I've seen decodes at -41 dB shown in the database, and that was with the old decoder.
One mustn't say LF/MF because there is a big difference. WSPR-15 would not perform good on 630m but on 2200m it does, as we can see these days.

73, Stefan
--------------020002080308060805090005--