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 tAFBxApP004497 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 12:59:10 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Zxvty-0003qw-SI for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 11:55:22 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Zxvty-0003qn-H0 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 11:55:22 +0000 Received: from omr-a003e.mx.aol.com ([204.29.186.57]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1Zxvsu-0000H4-Ip for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 11:55:21 +0000 Received: from mtaout-mab01.mx.aol.com (mtaout-mab01.mx.aol.com [172.26.249.81]) by omr-a003e.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 680D83800081 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 06:53:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from White (ipbcc05f3c.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de [188.192.95.60]) by mtaout-mab01.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPA id A953038000081 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 06:53:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: "Markus Vester" To: References: Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 12:53:52 +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=1447588439; bh=03C24OMFueYSPxJS9/7Sm9eo4ztib7E5LOBxDw6ebKM=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=YIhOL964P/DAEcEAkU7eNB0mvcsZUZaTiYv56jjxFaDVFkD0bBzLjfXi42z9ldMbl rtMRKzDiQywgrkFvgr8QmkHi2rBoq/NbAqredjh/9d56XvhPUlGVBQfCytbMokS8S1 +2ze8BES2Sz+ulZmO49kYFuLVw+KMgT3iyWZ3OuM= x-aol-sid: 3039ac1af95156487254490d X-AOL-IP: 188.192.95.60 X-Scan-Signature: 7c995d39cde70605aa76dd18810a4256 Subject: Re: LF: WSPR DECODES - and Opera Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01D11FA4.AE4E26F0" 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: 5090 Dies ist eine mehrteilige Nachricht im MIME-Format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01D11FA4.AE4E26F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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_0006_01D11FA4.AE4E26F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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=20 were used, and only completely correct readings were counted as success. = Due to=20 the structure of Morse code (dashes are better visible than dots), = partial=20 "decodes" are often possible at lower SNR, which often allow conducting = a QSO=20 using some 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_0006_01D11FA4.AE4E26F0--