Envelope-to: dave@picks.force9.co.uk
Delivery-date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:59:03 +0000
Message-ID: <43DF973B.3090807@freenet.de>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:58:35 +0000
From: Wolf DL4YHF <dl4yhf@freenet.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <003301c6263d$8c89cee0$0100a8c0@jpmpcportable> <002101c6264f$35250bd0$2201a8c0@pcroelof>
In-Reply-To: <002101c6264f$35250bd0$2201a8c0@pcroelof>
Subject: Re: LF: T/A JAN 31
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

Hi Roelof,

Neither ARGO nor SpecLab nor any other FFT-based spectrum display 
software needs noise.
Without AGC,  the colour of a pixel in the waterfall only depends on the 
strenght of the carrier (except of course for the radio-direction finder 
mode, which you see on DF6NM's grabber).
Things may are a bit more complicated if you have an AGC (which may 
cause the colour to get weaker in the presence of strong noise, even if 
the strength of the "wanted" signal remains the same).

Best regards,
  Wolf .


Roelof Bakker schrieb:

> Hello all,
>
> Last night I tried ARGO.
> The band started very noisy, but I got captures of WD2XKO and WD2XGJ.
> VO1NA appeared later.
>
> I have heard rumours that ARGO and SpecLab need some background noise 
> to compare the signals against and hence should work better with a 
> (relative) wider bandwidth.
> At present, I am using a 12 Hz bandwidth and both programs seem to 
> work fine.
> Can anyone shed some light on this?
>
> Thank you in advance,
>
> Roelof Bakker, pa0rdt
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>