Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mi06.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 26C9B380000B4; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 12:33:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TTxgw-0007tz-Is for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 01 Nov 2012 16:32:26 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TTxgw-0007tq-2m for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 01 Nov 2012 16:32:26 +0000 Received: from mout2.freenet.de ([195.4.92.92]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (UNKNOWN:AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TTxgu-0007PH-6Y for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 01 Nov 2012 16:32:24 +0000 Received: from [195.4.92.142] (helo=mjail2.freenet.de) by mout2.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (port 25) (Exim 4.76 #1) id 1TTxgs-0001qy-TW for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 01 Nov 2012 17:32:22 +0100 Received: from localhost ([::1]:55446 helo=mjail2.freenet.de) by mjail2.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (Exim 4.76 #1) id 1TTxgs-0006Nc-NI for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 01 Nov 2012 17:32:22 +0100 Received: from [195.4.92.28] (port=40591 helo=18.mx.freenet.de) by mjail2.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (Exim 4.76 #1) id 1TTxe6-0005hr-GG for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 01 Nov 2012 17:29:30 +0100 Received: from blfd-4db0078f.pool.mediaways.net ([77.176.7.143]:2262 helo=[192.168.178.22]) by 18.mx.freenet.de with esmtpsa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (port 465) (Exim 4.76 #1) id 1TTxe6-0002G7-4q for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 01 Nov 2012 17:29:30 +0100 Message-ID: <5092A369.9030707@freenet.de> Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 17:29:29 +0100 From: wolf_dl4yhf User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <508D92BE.2040500@broadpark.no> <508ED047.1000504@broadpark.no> <508EEDA9.7070905@princeton.edu> <50901CB0.2040405@princeton.edu> <50917D09.2030908@princeton.edu> <509299E8.7010608@princeton.edu> <50929E53.50006@psk31.plus.com> In-Reply-To: <50929E53.50006@psk31.plus.com> X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) 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: Am 01.11.2012 17:07, schrieb g3zjo: > Hi Joe / LF >> On my development system the same input level is required to make >> both WSPR and WSJT-X happy. Likewise on my shack computer. For >> example, see the screen shot posted at >> http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/WSJTX_WSPR.png >> > Interesting that when I talk of WSPR levels I refer to WSPR2. > Someone sent me a screen Grab the other day Just like the one you > show, but of WSPR2 and WSJT-X, that grab confirmed that when WSPR2 > shows 0dB, WSJTX is right up the top of the scale just like I experience. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [195.4.92.92 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (dl4yhf[at]freenet.de) -0.7 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: b77892ad90d0261eaf071f4f6cf31464 Subject: Re: LF: Soundcard issues Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; 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: 3039ac1d7b8e5092a4492f7d X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Am 01.11.2012 17:07, schrieb g3zjo: > Hi Joe / LF >> On my development system the same input level is required to make >> both WSPR and WSJT-X happy. Likewise on my shack computer. For >> example, see the screen shot posted at >> http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/WSJTX_WSPR.png >> > Interesting that when I talk of WSPR levels I refer to WSPR2. > Someone sent me a screen Grab the other day Just like the one you > show, but of WSPR2 and WSJT-X, that grab confirmed that when WSPR2 > shows 0dB, WSJTX is right up the top of the scale just like I experience. Yes, confirmed .. WSJT-X input levels are indicated extremely high (one or dB below the "60 dB" level), even though the 16-bit integer samples acquired by another program (here: Spectrum Lab) from the same soundcard, at the same sampling rate, at the very same time, hardly ever reach 10 percent of the +/- 32767 integer value range. In other words, the true audio input level is extremely low (voltage), WSJT-X indicates it's still too large. I used a TS-850 for reception, which has a 'constant level' audio output which could always be connected to any soundcard's "line input" (not "mic input") with the PC's (windows XP) input volume slider centered. For WSJT-X, I must crank down that slider, so it's just one single tick above 'zero'. Only a 12 (or so) bits out of the 16 delivered by the A/D converter are alive at that setting. The device is configured for 16 bits / sample, in fact the hardware is not capable of delivering 24 bits/sample at all. All the best, Wolf .