Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-da06.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id BF04F380000A2; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 09:09:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TBmMo-0005GU-UR for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:48:30 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TBmMo-0005GL-Ha for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:48:30 +0100 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de ([129.206.210.211]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TBmMm-00084d-Tc for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:48:29 +0100 Received: from freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.29.204]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q8CCmMMJ019947 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:48:22 +0200 Received: from [129.206.22.206] (pc206.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.22.206]) by freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.11.20060308/8.11.2) with ESMTP id q8CCmL6g025550 for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:48:21 +0200 Message-ID: <505083D5.6070709@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:45:09 +0200 From: =?windows-1252?Q?Stefan_Sch=E4fer?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <504E733E.5000208@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>,<8CF5E5BCA46639D-8FC-4829A@webmail-d050.sysops.aol.com> <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB22D26@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be>,<82bc7bcd97ea679e8be267e8e2add69c@dl1dbc.net> <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB22E5E@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be> In-Reply-To: <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB22E5E@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be> X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi Rik, Am 12.09.2012 14:05, schrieb Rik Strobbe: > Hello Sabine, > > as mentioned in the report the test were done off-air, by adding equal amounts of pure white noise to WSPR / Opera signals of identical amplitude. > So no QRM/QRN or QSB involved. Maybe I will do these tests over with QRN and/or QSB added (if there is some interest and if time permits). > Yes, there is some interest! It would be possible to run an audio file in SpecLab, presenting typical LF-evening noise, maybe plus some DCF/HGA sidebands and carrier! I think it is possible that there will be a difference, resulting in pro-Opera. At least yesterday it seemed to me that OP32 cannot be as bad as often mentioned. [...] Content analysis details: (-2.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust [129.206.210.211 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: 0b2d339ae1d48966556dfb6ad64e2bce Subject: LF: slow WSPR? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none 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-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d404e505089861e2a X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hi Rik, Am 12.09.2012 14:05, schrieb Rik Strobbe: > Hello Sabine, > > as mentioned in the report the test were done off-air, by adding equal amounts of pure white noise to WSPR / Opera signals of identical amplitude. > So no QRM/QRN or QSB involved. Maybe I will do these tests over with QRN and/or QSB added (if there is some interest and if time permits). > Yes, there is some interest! It would be possible to run an audio file in SpecLab, presenting typical LF-evening noise, maybe plus some DCF/HGA sidebands and carrier! I think it is possible that there will be a difference, resulting in pro-Opera. At least yesterday it seemed to me that OP32 cannot be as bad as often mentioned. 73, Stefan/DK7FC