Return-Path: Received: from rly-ma09.mx.aol.com (rly-ma09.mail.aol.com [172.20.116.53]) by air-ma08.mail.aol.com (v121_r5.5) with ESMTP id MAILINMA081-8cc49737ea2336; Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:10:55 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-ma09.mx.aol.com (v121_r4.4) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINMA096-8cc49737ea2336; Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:10:28 -0500 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1LOd1w-0005Wu-IB for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:09:56 +0000 Received: from [193.82.59.130] (helo=relay2.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1LOd1v-0005Wl-VY for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:09:56 +0000 Received: from relay4-v.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.178.78]) by relay2.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1LOd1v-0008Sj-0U for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:09:55 +0000 Received: from HATSHEPSOUT (ALagny-151-1-96-103.w86-203.abo.wanadoo.fr [86.203.210.103]) by relay4-v.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FA93BA1F for ; Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:09:49 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:09:48 +0100 From: Michel F5WK X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <192112490.20090118200948@mterrier.net> To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: Re: LF: WSPR SNR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.63 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-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Hello Jim, LF, > I think this shows that this mode should compete well with QRSS3 for readi= bility. I made a quick comparison a few days ago between a weak wspr signal and QRSS-3. With Spectrum Lab, I added noise to the locally generated beacon until no decoding. SNR below -28 db was not decoded, and it was a very precise threshold. Then, I just switched to QRSS-3, keeping the signal level at absolutely the same level. Only faint traces could be seen on the waterfall with no readibility at all. The noise had to be lowered by 2 to 3 dB in order to read the QRSS-3 message. 73, Michel f5wk