MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 09:46:58 +0200
From: Sabine Cremer <sabine@dl1dbc.net>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
In-Reply-To: <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB22D26@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be>
References: <504E733E.5000208@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>,<8CF5E5BCA46639D-8FC-4829A@webmail-d050.sysops.aol.com>
 <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB22D26@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be>
Message-ID: <82bc7bcd97ea679e8be267e8e2add69c@dl1dbc.net>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.8.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: LF: RE: =?UTF-8?Q?=5Brsgb=5Flf=5Fgroup=5D=20Re=3A=20LF=3A=20slow=20WS?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?PR=3F?=
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Hi Rik,

thank you very much for the link to the results of your study.

I was told often, that Opera is much more sensitive than WSPR. It was 
interesting to learn that this might be the result of Opera giving SNR 
reports 3 dB lower than actually present in the signal path.

I think, there are some myths surrounding some digital modes... ;-)

73
Sabine


Am 12.09.2012 08:55, schrieb Rik Strobbe:
> Hi Marcus, Stefan, All,
>
> Some kind of "WSPR8" (8 minutes wspr sequence) could indeed be tested
> by generating the WSPR8 signal (what is easy as WSPR is fully
> documented) and accelerate the recorded signal 4 times before feeding
> it into the WSPR software. But this method requires to reduce the
> WSPR8 bandwidth (frequency spacing between the tones) also by a 
> factor
> of 4, from 6Hz to 1.5Hz.
>
> If you look at WSPR as an FM signal, the WSPR8 signal created that
> way will have the same modulation index as the original WSPR(2)
> signal, while a WSPR8 signal at the "old" 6Hz bandwidth would have a 
> 4
> times larger modulation index. And the modulation index affects the
> SNR. Thus the suggested method might not fully exploit the
> possibilities of WSPR8 (at unchanged bandwidth).
>
> BTW: the results of the SNR performance test are still available at
> http://on7yd.strobbe.eu [1]/QRSS/ [1].
>
> 73, Rik ON7YD
>
> -------------------------
>
> VAN: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk
> [rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk] namens Markus Vester
> [markusvester@aol.com]
>  VERZONDEN: dinsdag 11 september 2012 19:41
>  TO: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
>  CC: edgarjtwining@virginbroadband.com.au; 
> rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk
>  ONDERWERP: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR?
>
> Hi Stefan, LF,
>
> if I remember correctly, Rik's careful evaluaton of SNR performance
> in February resulted in a threshold for reliable decoding of -23 dB
> for Opera-2, versus -29 dB for WSPR. This is carrier power versus
> noise in 2.5 kHz, Opera "average power" reports are scaled 4 dB 
> lower.
> Thus at same available ERP, WSPR would indeed have a 4x advantage in
> speed, and be equivalent to Opera-8. WSPR also transmits slightly 
> more
> information, ie. locator field and power.
>
> Rik also looked at QRSS and DFCW, which at 100 % readability seemed
> to provide same or slightly higher throughput than Opera (with some
> depence on callsign length and viewing skills).
>
> Technically it would be straightforward to generate a slow WSPR
> transmission, and also certainly feasible to play back an accelerated
> recording. You'd have to get the timing right to fit to the 2-minute
> slots, and the web reports would probably show wrong frequencies,
> times and SNR. As Roger says, asking Joe Taylor for a modified 
> version
> would be a better permanent solution.
>
> But whether slow or fast, it' still a digital mode, containing a
> blackbox producing either valid output or nothing at all. If you are
> after detection of the weakest possible signals, in my opinion the
> visual modes or even a straight carrier transmission will be the only
> way to see those "T" and "M" traces, along with the features of the
> noise or QRM which we are trying to overcome.
>
> Best 73,
> Markus (DF6NM)
>
>  -----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung-----
>  Von: Stefan Schäfer <Stefan.Schaefer@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
>  An: rsgb_lf_group <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
>  Cc: Edgar J Twining <edgarjtwining@virginbroadband.com.au>
>  Verschickt: Di, 11 Sept 2012 1:14 am
>  Betreff: LF: slow WSPR?
>
> It's a pity that there is no slow-WSPR, e.g. needing 32 minutes or 
> so.
>
> If WSPR (2 minutes FSK) is about as efficient as OP8 ( i heared so),
>
> then it should be a real alternative to the slow DX modes on LF but 
> not
>
> on MF!
>
> There is a software that plays recorded audio files in a faster mode, 
> so
>
> that QRSS becomes audible. VE2IQ has reported to me last year about 
> it
>
> but i don't remember the name.
>
> Would it be possible to make our own slow WSPR by using that software
>
> and playing a 32 minute manipulated WSPR at 16x speed, feeding it to 
> the
>
> normal WSPR rx software? The slower code could be generated outside 
> the
>
> program. Would that be a useful test or do i miss something?
>
> 73, Stefan/DK7FC
>
> Am 10.09.2012 19:26, schrieb Graham:
>
>> May be Mal
>
>>
>
>> But once again Jim has the answer to this problem ..if you can
>
>> find his articles after Google trashed the uk500khz news group ,
>
>>
>
>> I think Jose R predicts a 6 dB gain by changing to PSK from
>
>> the Opera on/off keying but that would prevent most of the
>
>> LH/MF usage
>
>>
>
>> G..
>
>>
>
> __._,_.___
>
> Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post [2] | Start a
> new topic [3] Messages in this topic [4] (1)
>  Recent Activity:
>
>  	* New Members [5] 1
>
> Visit Your Group [6]
>  [7]
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use [8]
>
> .
>
> __,_._,___
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://on7yd.strobbe.eu/QRSS/
> [2]
> 
> http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/rsgb_lf_group/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxZ2FmaWxkBF9TAzk3NDkwNTA1BGdycElkAzg1MDgwODk1BGdycHNwSWQDMTY5MDA2MzEwOARtc2dJZAMxMDI0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM0NzM4NTMwMA--?act=reply&amp;messageNum=1024
> [3]
> 
> http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/rsgb_lf_group/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZzNtaWo0BF9TAzk3NDkwNTA1BGdycElkAzg1MDgwODk1BGdycHNwSWQDMTY5MDA2MzEwOARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzNDczODUzMDA-
> [4]
> 
> http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/rsgb_lf_group/message/1024;_ylc=X3oDMTM1bTRxaDljBF9TAzk3NDkwNTA1BGdycElkAzg1MDgwODk1BGdycHNwSWQDMTY5MDA2MzEwOARtc2dJZAMxMDI0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM0NzM4NTMwMAR0cGNJZAMxMDI0
> [5]
> 
> http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/rsgb_lf_group/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJnMnFsMGJtBF9TAzk3NDkwNTA1BGdycElkAzg1MDgwODk1BGdycHNwSWQDMTY5MDA2MzEwOARzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxMzQ3Mzg1MzAw?o=6
> [6]
> 
> http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/rsgb_lf_group;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMG81aDJ1BF9TAzk3NDkwNTA1BGdycElkAzg1MDgwODk1BGdycHNwSWQDMTY5MDA2MzEwOARzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEzNDczODUzMDA-
> [7]
> 
> http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlN2NuYXZpBF9TAzk3NDkwNTAzBGdycElkAzg1MDgwODk1BGdycHNwSWQDMTY5MDA2MzEwOARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTM0NzM4NTMwMA--
> [8] http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms.html