Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mj02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 923AB380000B2; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 13:49:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TTysK-0000vt-NI for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 01 Nov 2012 17:48:16 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TTysK-0000vk-9x for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 01 Nov 2012 17:48:16 +0000 Received: from out1.ip07ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.243]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TTysI-0007z6-48 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 01 Nov 2012 17:48:15 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArUBAPa0klBcGSwr/2dsb2JhbAANN8AJhw8BAQEBAzgRQAsJCwQJFg8JAwIBAgFFEwgBAYgNqQ2Tc4t7gxeDJAOVeIEbihqHfQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,695,1344207600"; d="scan'208";a="52585688" Received: from host-92-25-44-43.as13285.net (HELO [192.168.2.3]) ([92.25.44.43]) by out1.ip07ir2.opaltelecom.net with ESMTP; 01 Nov 2012 17:48:12 +0000 Message-ID: <5092B5F7.7050805@psk31.plus.com> Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 17:48:39 +0000 From: g3zjo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 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> <5092AEF4.5010809@psk31.plus.com> In-Reply-To: <5092AEF4.5010809@psk31.plus.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) 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: Sorry that went all wrong I include WSPR2 showing that sometimes t goes down to -15dB these are the screen shots. http://i50.tinypic.com/1zdqtv.jpg http://i49.tinypic.com/14spma8.jpg [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-Scan-Signature: 195b836cb7437e99aa05107459888659 Subject: Re: LF: Soundcard issues TRY AGAIN 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: 3039ac1d7b965092b6234311 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Sorry that went all wrong I include WSPR2 showing that sometimes t goes down to -15dB these are the screen shots. http://i50.tinypic.com/1zdqtv.jpg http://i49.tinypic.com/14spma8.jpg Tiny Pic caused me so much delay and didn't load etc. On 01/11/2012 17:18, g3zjo wrote: > Well done the check, see the Screen shots 20 odd dB difference between > WSPR2 and WSPR2 11 I take it WSPR3 is the same? > > If you can get the shots Tiny Pic runs on steam just lately. > > http://i48.tinypic.com/bvo75.jpg > > http://i49.tinypic.com/2upbukh.jpg > > Eddie > > On 01/11/2012 16:07, g3zjo wrote: >> 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. They added that WSPR2 11 has the same, their words, >> ridiculously high, sound levels. >> I have never tried it will down load it now. >> >> Eddie G3ZJO >> >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2441/5366 - Release Date: >> 10/31/12 >> >> > > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2441/5366 - Release Date: 10/31/12 > >