Return-Path: Received: from rly-mg08.mx.aol.com (rly-mg08.mail.aol.com [172.20.83.114]) by air-mg04.mail.aol.com (v125.7) with ESMTP id MAILINMG043-a274ac32c8c2e2; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:01:52 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-mg08.mx.aol.com (v125.7) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINMG081-a274ac32c8c2e2; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:01:50 -0400 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Msvzf-0004no-0u for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:01:07 +0100 Received: from [83.244.159.144] (helo=relay3.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Msvze-0004nf-Cr for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:01:06 +0100 Received: from imr-ma06.mx.aol.com ([64.12.78.142]) by relay3.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1MsvzU-0004EH-6z for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:00:57 +0100 Received: from imo-da04.mx.aol.com (imo-da04.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.202]) by imr-ma06.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n8UA0js9018877 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:00:45 -0400 Received: from MarkusVester@aol.com by imo-da04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.5.) id l.cb8.571f02b1 (34923) for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:00:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtprly-dc02.mx.aol.com (smtprly-dc02.mx.aol.com [205.188.170.2]) by cia-da03.mx.aol.com (v125.7) with ESMTP id MAILCIADA038-d3854ac32c4413d; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:00:40 -0400 Received: from webmail-d001 (webmail-d001.sim.aol.com [205.188.181.92]) by smtprly-dc02.mx.aol.com (v125.7) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYDC025-d3854ac32c4413d; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:00:36 -0400 References: <421429475.1254264070.159091748.28056@mcgi58.rambler.ru> To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:00:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: <421429475.1254264070.159091748.28056@mcgi58.rambler.ru> X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Markus Vester X-MB-Message-Type: User X-Mailer: Webmail 28200-STANDARD Received: from 194.138.39.60 by webmail-d001.sysops.aol.com (205.188.181.92) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:00:36 -0400 Message-Id: <8CC0FCBFE0278EA-540C-90C8@webmail-d001.sysops.aol.com> X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: MarkusVester@aol.com X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001 Subject: Re: LF: G3LDO Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CC0FCBFE0E5FD4_540C_12990_webmail-d001.sysops.aol.com" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE 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 ----------MB_8CC0FCBFE0E5FD4_540C_12990_webmail-d001.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi Roman, LF, from my experience, I=C2=A0don't think=C2=A0that=C2=A0either SpecLab or Ar= go=C2=A0would generally be=C2=A0more sensitive than the other.=C2=A0If you= use similar settings (eg. FFT=C2=A0resolution 0.34 Hz), then there is lit= tle=C2=A0difference in the appearance of the spectrograms. On the other ha= nd, compared to Argo's predefined optimized settings, SpecLab has a lot of= flexibility, allowing=C2=A0for example to trade in sensitivity for screen= bandwidth. Kind regards, MArkus (DF6NM) -----Urspr=C3=BCngliche Mitteilung-----=20 Von: Roman RW3ADB An: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Verschickt: Mi., 30. Sept. 2009, 0:41 Thema: LF: G3LDO Hi Peter, LF!=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Looking to your freq too!=C2=A0 qrss.nm.ru -> grabber 3 window 500-501.7=C2=A03rd window. But SPL... Is no= t so sensitive then ARGO.=C2=A0 But I hope to see you.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 --=C2=A0 Roman RW3ADB.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 ----------MB_8CC0FCBFE0E5FD4_540C_12990_webmail-d001.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Hi Roman, LF,
 
from my experience, I don't think that either SpecLab= or Argo would generally be more sensitive than the other. = If you use similar settings (eg. FFT resolution 0.34 Hz), then there= is little difference in the appearance of the spectrograms. On the= other hand, compared to Argo's predefined optimized settings, SpecLab has= a lot of flexibility, allowing for example to trade in sensitivity= for screen bandwidth.
 
Kind regards,
MArkus (DF6NM)

-----Urspr=C3=BCngliche Mitteilung-----
Von: Roman RW3ADB <rw3adb@rambler.ru>
An: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Verschickt: Mi., 30. Sept. 2009, 0:41
Thema: LF: G3LDO
Hi Peter, LF! 
 
Looking to your freq too! 
qrss.nm.ru -> grabber 3 window 500-501.7 3rd window. But SPL... Is= not so sensitive then ARGO. 
But I hope to see you. 
 
-- 
Roman RW3ADB. 
 
----------MB_8CC0FCBFE0E5FD4_540C_12990_webmail-d001.sysops.aol.com--