DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=sn17O2aReVzG1EcEDoYButli06x2yJYwdgSmp90zhqwQ/xn9QBEzmtbcf+HkAaNePo
         PgztKI6PVsfbWDNm157ZvJHYISTH8GDUE6mkByn3yzq/m1wyYUkrJvSydq72z0CyOSQJ
         5v2a10yy/n7s+Y5kPRNeYt+vw6yCdUA48fZJ0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <47E8873B5C254CA9A406AA345E229ED6@Black>
References: <47E8873B5C254CA9A406AA345E229ED6@Black>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:22:25 +0000
Message-ID: <fc7eccec0912140322p5181426eye04d615e7dcabf2e@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andy Talbot <andy.g4jnt@googlemail.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
DomainKey-Status: good (testing) 
Subject: Re: LF: WSPR 2.0 samplerate
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Windows XP automatically resamples audio at rates that the saoundcard
can't  'inherently' support, rather than report an error.  Most
moderncards have an underlying clock based on 48kHz or 96kHz now, so
11025 etc rates are derived from this.   However, the resampling is
rarely exact, and for 11025 usually ends up at 11100Hz which is 0.68%
high, or occasionally at 10800Hz.  G3PLX reckons they are all
multiples of 300Hz - which looks to be a valid hypothesis, even if
tnot confirmed.

Normally, 12000 (or 48kHz really) based rates are the best as all
modern soundcards use this, but your older machine probably has a
44100Hz soundcard, in which case WinXP is trying to get 12000Hz and
failing to get close enough - the 0.6% you quote seems
non-coincidental!

It is a pity that WSPR does not have the sample rate correction
facility of WSJT - presumably Joe thought that by using 48kHz windows
would just throw up an error if it wasn't possible, but the annoying
windows driver just tries to do the best it can.


Andy
www.g4jnt.com

This email has been scanned for damaging side-effects by the health
and safety police



2009/12/13 Markus Vester <markusvester@aol.com>:
> Dear LF,
>
> I have recently installed WSPR 2.0 on one older XP machine and found tha=
t
> decodes were=A0erratic, and=A0the=A0frequency readout was=A0about 10 Hz=
 high. The
> reason seems to be that the input samplerate is about 0.6 % low. The out=
put
> samplerate is however correct.
>
> The strange thing is that this samplerate error was not present=A0with=
 the
> former version 1.12. I now have the two versions running simultaneously=
 side
> by side, on the same machine with the same soundcard. WSPR 1.12 is produ=
cing
> perfect decodes=A0on the correct frequency, whereas=A02.0 reproducibly=
 shows the
> described effects. It looks like the new version somehow accesses the
> soundcard differently.
>
> Has anybody else experienced this?
>
> Best 73,
> Markus, DF6NM
>