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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL, HTML_40_50,HTML_MESSAGE 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 tAFEVT9w004836 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 15:31:29 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1ZxyHq-0004Q8-SQ for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 14:28:10 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1ZxyHq-0004Pz-CD for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 14:28:10 +0000 Received: from omr-a006e.mx.aol.com ([204.29.186.55]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ZxyGl-0000fz-Ot for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 14:28:09 +0000 Received: from mtaout-maa01.mx.aol.com (mtaout-maa01.mx.aol.com [172.26.222.141]) by omr-a006e.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id BE221380008F for ; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 09:26:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from White (ipbcc05f3c.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de [188.192.95.60]) by mtaout-maa01.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPA id C2E7638000091 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 09:26:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <69319B94D54A4C61B773B026A2BECCD6@White> From: "Markus Vester" To: References: <1169E1EB8885465CA1504850B317B6FB@malcoHP> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 15:26:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 12.0.1606 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V12.0.1606 x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20150623; t=1447597606; bh=DG0xV2gOkrB25X86lQn62uXw3pVx+JVj0+TIR/D4TMw=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=6ub8Uq2uS7OTRdFBuhf9D2IBZ1DIfq6IQeycuEhyglVySrZrMK02nIo7b/7NHM4ZL Ix5qK6IZfPz6T0cTf9Yz+EbL0VIr0MmN+rr7f4+51jIt4bZ0N7q1mDry3dPj9wEHBs 7UkGUUk68+cxiJJZGU38/IyqmjQr4YNyIlAlagAk= x-aol-sid: 3039ac1ade8d564896235127 X-AOL-IP: 188.192.95.60 X-Scan-Signature: d4b11820086e28e9e085cef3e7768d06 Subject: Re: LF: Re: WSPR DECODES - and Opera Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01D11FBA.07983A10" 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: 5094 Dies ist eine mehrteilige Nachricht im MIME-Format. ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01D11FBA.07983A10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Mal,=20 >> whereas data modes when they do not decode they meaningless ...yes, the "all-or-nothing" or "brickwall" effect of error-correcting = digital decoders. That's why I generally share your preference for = visual modes, where you can at least see some traces of a signal even = when it's too weak to be fully readable.=20 EA5DOM is currently alternating between WSPR-2 and Op-8 transmissions. = Now in the daytime, the signal is not quite strong enough to be decoded = here. But it is producing a string of weak blobs on 478520 on the opds-8 = waterfall, accompanied by occasional detections: = https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26404526/opds.htm All the best, Markus From: mal hamilton=20 Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 2:47 PM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: LF: Re: WSPR DECODES - and Opera Markus Regardless of theory and speculation what I have observed in reality is = that weak visible signals showing on the waterfall would be perfectly = readable had the mode been QRSS whereas data modes when they do not = decode they meaningless. I do not necessarily believe everything that someone tells me, in some = cases it is guesswork, speculation and manipulation of figures. The results also depend on the environment where the experiment was = carried out, too many variables to be conclusive. I can only observe what I see in reality. No doubt the argument for and against data modes will continue and are = fun to play with in an amateur context and every Radio Amateur/Appliance = operator has a different of set of circumstances at their QTH. What = works for one does not always work for another de mal=E2=80=99g3kev From: Markus Vester=20 Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 11:53 AM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: Re: LF: WSPR DECODES - and Opera QRSS better than WSPR? Almost, but not quite... see Rik's evaluation: http://on7yd.strobbe.eu/QRSS/ The SNR threshold 50% successful WSPR decodes is between -29 and -30 dB = (2.5 kHz), wheras the QRSS messages required a couple of dB more (-27 to = -28 dB). In Rik's challenge, completely random messages were used, and = only completely correct readings were counted as success. Due to the = structure of Morse code (dashes are better visible than dots), partial = "decodes" are often possible at lower SNR, which often allow conducting = a QSO using some a-priori information and guesswork. =20 Rik also looked at Opera versus WSPR, and found a 6 dB deficit for Opera = at same peak power. That was probably still in an early stage of Opera = development, and the decoding abilities have been improved since then. = My own tests with Opera v1.5.6 =20 http://df6nm.bplaced.net/opera/Success_rate.png got 50% successful Op-32 decodes at -40 dB average SNR. This scales to = -28 dB (av) or -25 dB (PEP) at Op-2 speed, i.e. a 1.5 dB improvement = since Rik's blue curve. However, at same average power, Opera-2 is still = 1.5 dB weaker than WSPR-2 (or 4.5 dB weaker at same peak power).=20 Including the volume of conveyed information, WSPR wins another 2.52 dB = (50 bits versus 28 bits), and it is also slightly shorter than Op-2 = (110.6 vs 122.4 s, another 0.44 dB). Thus alltogether the difference is = 4.5 dB at same average power (i.e. Op needs 2.8 times the energy per = bit), or 7.5 dB at same PEP (with a given TX, Opera needs 5.6 times as = long to send the same amount of information). Minimum Eb/N0 values are = about +7.9 dB for WSPR and +12.4 dB for Opera. Regarding correlation detections, my measurements using coherent signals = showed that opds can go about 8 dB lower than the Opera decoder. For = comparison, Opera's Dynamic Deep-Search believably claims to go 5 dB = below the decoder. Sorry for reiterating this topic again... Best 73, Markus (DF6NM) =20 From: mal hamilton=20 Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 10:37 AM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: LF: WSPR DECODES MF I have been observing WSPR signals this past couple of days on 474.2 Khz = and although most are Decoding there are a number of weak signals = visible on the waterfall that do not decode. I am in a quiet location = so noise is not a problem. My clock and input are set up as specified. Had these station been using QRSS the copy would be perfect.=20 also the same applies to Opera signals visible on the waterfall but do not = decode, usually weak. QRSS has the advantage that the raw signal observed is immediately = readable on the screen even the barely visible. G3KEV ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01D11FBA.07983A10 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Mal,
 
>>=20 whereas data modes when they do not decode they = meaningless
 
...yes, the "all-or-nothing" or = "brickwall" effect=20 of error-correcting digital decoders. That's why I generally = share your=20 preference for visual modes, where you can at least see some traces = of a=20 signal even when it's too weak to be fully readable.
 
EA5DOM is currently alternating = between WSPR-2=20 and Op-8 transmissions. Now in the daytime, the signal is not quite = strong=20 enough to be decoded here. But it is producing a string of weak = blobs on=20 478520 on the opds-8 waterfall, accompanied by occasional detections:=20 https://dl= .dropboxusercontent.com/u/26404526/opds.htm
 
All the best,
Markus
 
 

Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 2:47 PM
Subject: LF: Re: WSPR DECODES - and Opera

Markus
Regardless of theory and speculation what I have observed in = reality is=20 that weak visible signals showing on the waterfall would be perfectly = readable=20 had the mode been QRSS whereas data modes when they do not decode they=20 meaningless.
I do not necessarily believe everything that someone tells me, in = some=20 cases it is guesswork, speculation and manipulation of figures.
The results also depend on the environment where the experiment was = carried=20 out, too many variables to be conclusive.
I can only observe what I see in reality.
No doubt the argument for and against data modes will continue and = are fun=20 to play with in an amateur context and every Radio Amateur/Appliance = operator=20 has a different of set of circumstances at their QTH.  What works = for one=20 does not always work for another
de mal=E2=80=99g3kev
 
 
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: LF: WSPR DECODES - and Opera
 
QRSS better than WSPR? Almost, but not = quite... see=20 Rik's evaluation:
 http://on7yd.strobbe.eu/QRSS/<= /FONT>
The SNR threshold 50% successful WSPR = decodes is=20 between -29 and -30 dB (2.5 kHz), wheras the QRSS messages required a = couple of=20 dB more (-27 to -28 dB). In Rik's challenge, completely random messages = were=20 used, and only completely correct readings were counted as success. Due = to the=20 structure of Morse code (dashes are better visible than dots), partial = "decodes"=20 are often possible at lower SNR, which often allow conducting a QSO = using some=20 a-priori information and guesswork.   
 
Rik also looked at Opera versus WSPR, = and found a 6=20 dB deficit for Opera at same peak power. That was probably still in an = early=20 stage of Opera development, and the decoding abilities have been = improved since=20 then. My own tests with Opera v1.5.6  
 http://df6nm.bpl= aced.net/opera/Success_rate.png
got=20 50% successful Op-32 decodes at -40 dB average SNR. This scales to -28 = dB (av)=20 or -25 dB (PEP) at Op-2 speed, i.e. a 1.5 dB improvement since Rik's = blue curve.=20 However, at same average power, Opera-2 is still 1.5 dB weaker = than=20 WSPR-2 (or 4.5 dB weaker at same peak power).
 
Including the volume of conveyed = information, WSPR=20 wins another 2.52 dB (50 bits versus 28 bits), and it is also slightly = shorter=20 than Op-2 (110.6 vs 122.4 s, another 0.44 dB). Thus alltogether the = difference=20 is 4.5 dB at same average power (i.e. Op needs 2.8 times the energy per = bit), or=20 7.5 dB at same PEP (with a given TX, Opera needs 5.6 times as long to = send the=20 same amount of information). Minimum Eb/N0 values are about +7.9 dB for = WSPR and=20 +12.4 dB for Opera.
 
Regarding correlation detections, my = measurements=20 using coherent signals showed that opds can go about 8 dB lower than the = Opera=20 decoder. For comparison, Opera's Dynamic Deep-Search believably claims = to go 5=20 dB below the decoder.
 
Sorry for reiterating this topic=20 again...
 
Best 73,
Markus (DF6NM)  =
 
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 10:37 AM
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20
Subject: LF: WSPR DECODES
 
MF
I have been observing WSPR signals this past couple of days on = 474.2 Khz=20 and although most are Decoding there are a number of weak signals = visible on=20 the  waterfall that do not decode. I am in a quiet location so = noise is not=20 a problem. My clock and input are set up as specified.
Had these station been using QRSS the copy would be perfect.
also
the same applies to Opera signals visible on the waterfall but do = not=20 decode, usually weak.
QRSS has the advantage that the raw signal observed is immediately = readable=20 on the screen even the barely visible.
 
G3KEV
 
------=_NextPart_000_000D_01D11FBA.07983A10--