Message-ID: <fc7eccec0803230312o59a4e35bneda2e8d16c72aad1@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 10:12:09 +0000
From: "Andy Talbot" <andy.g4jnt@googlemail.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Cc: "Joe Taylor" <joe@princeton.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: LF: Thoughts on WSJTA tests vs. WSPR
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_7175_29584433.1206267129502"
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


------=_Part_7175_29584433.1206267129502
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Having just read back through Joe Taylor's  WSJT documentation, my comments
last night about how the WSJTA version ought to be 3dB better than the
..B  due to narrower signal bandwidth just aren't true.     The noise / weak
signal performance is governed by the FFT bin size which is inextricably
linked with the symbol length and remains substantially constant between
WSJTa/b/c.  So therefore, to all intents and purposes, there is no major S/N
difference between any of the three modes.

The symbol length is 0.372s, and bin size 2.69Hz  (11025 / 4096).  Compare
this to WSPR with its symbol rate and signal bandwidth of  12000/8192 =
1.46Hz.   An immediate improvement of 2.6dB in S/N.  Couple this with the
processing not having to cope with a spread out signal, less overhead on a
sync sequence and able to make more use of the interleaving, and its
becoming easier to see why the mode is quite a lot better in practice than
JT65a when used on LF.

The wider bandwidth JT65B and C modes are to cope with frequency spreading
and the scattering present on VHF/UHF and EME links.   The wider tone
spacing is just to help tone separation in the decoder.  It provides no
additional advantage *when propagation is clean* and no frequency spreading
occurs - exactly the case at LF

I went back and did some S/N measurements again, using GB3VHF / JT65B with
an attenuator in the antenna feed until I got the same S/N reports as last
night's tests.  Those S/N reports are below the threshold for decoding
rising to just about sitting at the lower end of what can be averaged into a
report after three demods.  Based on this new understanding I am now a lot
less surprisd that no decodes were achieved.

In a way, it is rather unfortunate that the WSJT Rx algorithm can detect the
sync sequence several dB below what is can extract data from.  This tends to
give users a false sense of signal quality.


-- 
Andy  G4JNT
www.scrbg.org/g4jnt

------=_Part_7175_29584433.1206267129502
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Having just read back through Joe Taylor&#39;s&nbsp;&nbsp;WSJT documentation, my comments last night about how the WSJTA version ought to be 3dB better than the ..B&nbsp;&nbsp;due to narrower signal bandwidth just aren&#39;t true.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The noise / weak signal performance is governed by the FFT bin size which is inextricably linked with the symbol length and remains substantially constant between WSJTa/b/c.&nbsp;&nbsp;So therefore, to all intents and purposes, there is no major S/N difference between any of the three modes. <br>
<br>The symbol length is 0.372s, and bin size 2.69Hz&nbsp;&nbsp;(11025 / 4096).&nbsp;&nbsp;Compare this to WSPR with its symbol rate and signal bandwidth of&nbsp;&nbsp;12000/8192 = 1.46Hz.&nbsp;&nbsp; An immediate improvement of 2.6dB in S/N.&nbsp;&nbsp;Couple this with the processing not having to cope with a spread out signal, less overhead on a sync sequence and able to make more use of the interleaving, and its becoming easier to see why the mode is quite a lot better in practice than JT65a when used on LF.<br>
<br>The wider bandwidth JT65B and C modes are to cope with frequency spreading and the scattering present on VHF/UHF and EME links.&nbsp;&nbsp; The wider tone spacing is just to help tone separation in the decoder.&nbsp;&nbsp;It provides no additional advantage <strong>when propagation is clean</strong> and no frequency spreading occurs - exactly the case at LF<br>
<br>I went back and did some S/N measurements again, using GB3VHF / JT65B with an attenuator in the antenna feed until I got the same S/N reports as last night&#39;s tests.&nbsp;&nbsp;Those S/N reports are below the threshold for decoding rising to just about sitting at the lower end of what can be averaged into a report after three demods.&nbsp;&nbsp;Based on this new understanding I am now a lot less surprisd that no decodes were achieved.<br>
<br>In a way, it is rather unfortunate that the WSJT Rx algorithm can detect the sync sequence several dB below what is can extract data from.&nbsp;&nbsp;This tends to give users a false sense of signal quality.<br><br><br>-- <br>Andy&nbsp;&nbsp;G4JNT<br>
<a href="http://www.scrbg.org/g4jnt">www.scrbg.org/g4jnt</a><br>

------=_Part_7175_29584433.1206267129502--