Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11064 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2000 14:04:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by grants.core.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 5 Jun 2000 14:04:07 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.02 #1) id 12yxPI-0007zd-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Mon, 05 Jun 2000 14:59:08 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received: from bob.dera.gov.uk ([192.5.29.90]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 12yxPH-0007zY-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 05 Jun 2000 14:59:07 +0100 Received: by bob.dera.gov.uk; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id PAA13848; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 15:03:04 +0100 (BST) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: (qmail 2594 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2000 14:54:09 -0000 Received: from gauntlet.mail.dera.gov.uk (172.16.9.10) by baton.dera.gov.uk with SMTP; 5 Jun 2000 14:54:09 -0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Received: by gauntlet.mail.dera.gov.uk; id OAA11794; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 14:54:24 GMT Received: from unknown(146.80.11.40) by gauntlet.mail.dera.gov.uk via smap (3.2) id xma011745; Mon, 5 Jun 00 14:53:52 GMT Received: from frn-gold-1.dera.gov.uk (unverified) by mailguard.dera.gov.uk (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.1.5) with ESMTP id for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 15:04:28 +0100 Received: by frn-gold-1.dera.gov.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) id ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 14:57:33 +0100 Message-ID: <3617AC3245C2D1118A840000F805359C01AB8C97@pdw-mercury-1.dera.gov.uk> From: "Talbot Andrew" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: LF: RE a really weak signal in Canada.... Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 14:57:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: It's been my experience that Soundcards replaying .WAV files can usually cope with any sampling rate above 5513Hz, although the resultant frequency generated may not be very accurate. The speeded up ones I tried were at 6250Hz One way to test, is to use a hex editor to access the header information in a .WAV file and just change the value of sampling rate, then see how well it can be replayed. Andy G4JNT > ---------- > From: Alberto di Bene[SMTP:dibene@usa.net] > Reply To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > Sent: 2000-06-05 13:22 > To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > Subject: Re: LF: a really weak signal in Canada.... > > Larry Kayser wrote: > > > Greetings: > > > > Quote > > I don't know if this has been tried before, but I just tried it and > it > > worked nicely. > > [snip] > > I recorded some 578 seconds of audio to hard disk at 7200 samples > per sec. > > [snip] > > Seems really a good idea, which could attract also the > die-hard CW-must-be-copied-by-ears crop around. > > Just one simple question : why 7200 samples/sec ? It is not a standard > sound card sampling rate. Is there a specific reason for this sampling > speed ? > Perhaps Bill was using an external A/D converter. For the technique to > become widespread and accepted by many (all), it shouldn't rely on an > ad-hoc hardware. Modern sound cards have superb A/D converters, > so why not use them ? > > 73, > Alberto I2PHD > > > -- The Information contained in this E-Mail and any subsequent correspondence is private and is intended solely for the intended recipient(s). For those other than the recipient any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on such information is prohibited and may be unlawful.