Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-df01.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 370C63800008C; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 19:48:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TSz3M-00054w-Jm for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 23:47:32 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TSz3M-00054i-0H for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 23:47:32 +0000 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de ([129.206.100.212]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TSz3J-0004JR-3d for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 23:47:30 +0000 Received: from freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.29.204]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id q9TNlHAQ012345 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 00:47:17 +0100 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 q9TNlHLO019111 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 00:47:17 +0100 Message-ID: <508F157E.9040108@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 00:47:10 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?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: <8D468B5D9DCA4B6D90ED557E68BB66AF@White> In-Reply-To: <8D468B5D9DCA4B6D90ED557E68BB66AF@White> X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-) 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: Hello Markus, OK so far. Thanks for your observations. Why are the levels so low? This is another open question. And why are decodes missed? Have you watched the decoder, was it finished before the next set of data is ready to be decoded? The decode time can be significantly reduced when reducing the decoder BW. On my TX-only instance i reduced it to +-1 Hz which is very helpful. [...] Content analysis details: (-1.3 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [129.206.100.212 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.6 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: ee37f4b261e58bbaf6a18fc5319c092e Subject: Re: LF: JT9-1 and 2, echoes, waterfall Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010906000705050903010103" 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=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE, LINES_OF_YELLING 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: 3039ac1d40d5508f15b97612 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010906000705050903010103 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Markus, OK so far. Thanks for your observations. Why are the levels so low? This is another open question. And why are decodes missed? Have you watched the decoder, was it finished before the next set of data is ready to be decoded? The decode time can be significantly reduced when reducing the decoder BW. On my TX-only instance i reduced it to +-1 Hz which is very helpful. I do not think that my transmissions are defective (glitches) so it is an open question why some decodes are missed. 73, Stefan Am 30.10.2012 00:30, schrieb Markus Vester: > The ghost echo appeared again today on every JT9-1 transmission from > Stefan. The effect appears in the waterfall and seems to create sync > points, so may possibly affect decoding. But there is no trace of > the echo in the wav files! I've uploaded a pair of examples (original > at 22:38, echo at 22:39) to > http://df6nm.bplaced.net/wsjt/jt9-1_121029/ > Some decodes from Stefan's JT9-1 and JT-2 so far, but still many > failed slots (see below). Stefan I wasn't aware you were actually > keeping pets... our red cat Gizmo is sitting here in the shack, > watching all this activity with deep interest ;-) > Yes on my little Atom netbook the new r2702 does take its time to do > the decodes, and at one time I also found the process living on for a > while after closing the window. > Change request to Joe's team: Would be nice if we could center the > waterfall to the working audio frequency, rather than a fixed 1000 Hz > start frequency. I would also like to pull the window narrower so > that both fit into a 1024x600 screen side by side. > Thanks again to Joe (DF2JP) and Chris (4X1RF) for the reports on my > short test! > Best 73, > Markus (DF6NM) > 2219 5 -25 0.2 1929.83 0.00 > 2220 10 -13 -0.2 1931.04 0.00 > 2221 10 -21 -0.2 1931.04 0.00 > 2222 10 -9 0.1 1931.04 0.00 > 2223 10 -19 -0.1 1931.04 0.00 > 2224 4 -25 0.0 1931.04 0.00 > 2225 2 -27 -0.2 1929.31 0.00 > 2232 10 -20 -0.1 1932.51 0.00 > 2233 5 -24 0.2 1930.77 0.00 > 2234 4 -25 0.2 1929.58 0.00 TX TEST DK7F > 2235 4 -25 -0.2 1929.83 0.00 > 2236 3 -26 0.2 1929.58 0.00 TX TEST DK7F > 2237 4 -25 -0.2 1929.83 0.00 > 2238 5 -25 0.2 1929.58 0.00 TX TEST DK7F > 2239 4 -26 -0.2 1929.83 0.00 > 2240 1 -28 0.2 1929.58 0.00 TX TEST DK7F > 2241 4 -25 -0.0 1931.04 0.00 > 2242 0 -32 -0.1 1930.77 0.00 > 2243 0 -30 0.0 1930.39 0.00 > 2244 0 -32 0.0 1932.03 0.00 > 2246 0 -30 -0.4 1926.90 0.00 > 2248 2 -26 -0.1 1931.56 0.00 > 2248 10 -11 0.3 1940.04 0.00 > 2250 1 -28 -0.2 1943.67 0.00 > 2252 10 -11 0.4 1939.93 0.00 I HAVE A CAT > 2254 0 -29 0.1 1934.80 0.00 > 2256 10 -9 0.3 1939.93 0.00 > 2258 0 -32 -0.1 1935.64 0.00 > 2300 10 -12 0.3 1939.93 0.00 I HAVE 2 CATS > 2302 0 -29 -0.1 1932.95 0.00 > 2304 10 -12 0.3 1939.93 0.00 I HAVE 2 CATS > 2306 0 -29 0.4 1933.03 0.00 > 2308 10 -13 0.4 1939.93 0.00 I HAVE 2 CATS > 2310 10 -9 0.4 1941.89 0.00 > 2312 10 -14 -0.4 1941.55 0.00 000AAA 000AAA RA90 > 2314 10 -15 0.3 1940.93 0.00 --------------010906000705050903010103 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Markus,

OK so far. Thanks for your observations.
Why are the levels so low? This is another open question. And why are decodes missed? Have you watched the decoder, was it finished before the next set of data is ready to be decoded? The decode time can be significantly reduced when reducing the decoder BW. On my TX-only instance i reduced it to +-1 Hz which is very helpful.

I do not think that my transmissions are defective (glitches) so it is an open question why some decodes are missed.

73, Stefan



Am 30.10.2012 00:30, schrieb Markus Vester:
The ghost echo appeared again today on every JT9-1 transmission from Stefan. The effect appears in the waterfall and seems to create sync points, so may possibly affect decoding. But there is no trace of the echo in the wav files! I've uploaded a pair of examples (original at 22:38, echo at 22:39) to
 
Some decodes from Stefan's JT9-1 and JT-2 so far, but still many failed slots (see below). Stefan I wasn't aware you were actually keeping pets... our red cat Gizmo is sitting here in the shack, watching all this activity with deep interest ;-)
 
Yes on my little Atom netbook the new r2702 does take its time to do the decodes, and at one time I also found the process living on for a while after closing the window.
 
Change request to Joe's team: Would be nice if we could center the waterfall to the working audio frequency, rather than a fixed 1000 Hz start frequency. I would also like to pull the window narrower so that both fit into a 1024x600 screen side by side. 
 
Thanks again to Joe (DF2JP) and Chris (4X1RF) for the reports on my short test!
 
Best 73,
Markus (DF6NM)
 
 
2219   5  -25   0.2 1929.83  0.00
2220  10  -13  -0.2 1931.04  0.00
2221  10  -21  -0.2 1931.04  0.00
2222  10   -9   0.1 1931.04  0.00
2223  10  -19  -0.1 1931.04  0.00
2224   4  -25   0.0 1931.04  0.00
2225   2  -27  -0.2 1929.31  0.00
2232  10  -20  -0.1 1932.51  0.00
2233   5  -24   0.2 1930.77  0.00
2234   4  -25   0.2 1929.58  0.00    TX TEST DK7F        
2235   4  -25  -0.2 1929.83  0.00
2236   3  -26   0.2 1929.58  0.00    TX TEST DK7F        
2237   4  -25  -0.2 1929.83  0.00
2238   5  -25   0.2 1929.58  0.00    TX TEST DK7F        
2239   4  -26  -0.2 1929.83  0.00
2240   1  -28   0.2 1929.58  0.00    TX TEST DK7F        
2241   4  -25  -0.0 1931.04  0.00
2242   0  -32  -0.1 1930.77  0.00
2243   0  -30   0.0 1930.39  0.00
2244   0  -32   0.0 1932.03  0.00
2246   0  -30  -0.4 1926.90  0.00
2248   2  -26  -0.1 1931.56  0.00
2248  10  -11   0.3 1940.04  0.00
2250   1  -28  -0.2 1943.67  0.00
2252  10  -11   0.4 1939.93  0.00   I HAVE A CAT         
2254   0  -29   0.1 1934.80  0.00
2256  10   -9   0.3 1939.93  0.00
2258   0  -32  -0.1 1935.64  0.00
2300  10  -12   0.3 1939.93  0.00   I HAVE 2 CATS        
2302   0  -29  -0.1 1932.95  0.00
2304  10  -12   0.3 1939.93  0.00   I HAVE 2 CATS        
2306   0  -29   0.4 1933.03  0.00
2308  10  -13   0.4 1939.93  0.00   I HAVE 2 CATS        
2310  10   -9   0.4 1941.89  0.00
2312  10  -14  -0.4 1941.55  0.00   000AAA 000AAA RA90   
2314  10  -15   0.3 1940.93  0.00
 
--------------010906000705050903010103--