Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-ma04.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 8B4D1380000E0; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 14:22:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TTz6k-0001Ja-LC for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 01 Nov 2012 18:03:10 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TTz6k-0001JR-8d for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 01 Nov 2012 18:03:10 +0000 Received: from out1.ip06ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.242]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TTz6i-00087E-9O for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 01 Nov 2012 18:03:09 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArUBABu4klBcGSwr/2dsb2JhbAANN8ALhw8BAQEBAzIBBRFACwkLBAkWDwkDAgECAUUTCAEBh3kUqQ6FII5Vi3uDF4MkA5V4izWHfQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,695,1344207600"; d="scan'208";a="555530266" Received: from host-92-25-44-43.as13285.net (HELO [192.168.2.3]) ([92.25.44.43]) by out1.ip06ir2.opaltelecom.net with ESMTP; 01 Nov 2012 18:03:02 +0000 Message-ID: <5092B96E.6040801@psk31.plus.com> Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 18:03:26 +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> <5092B253.1010700@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> In-Reply-To: <5092B253.1010700@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> 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: Hi Stefan Of course it is difficult to get steady reading because of the pulsing the noise, but I think we get the idea WSPR2 11 sits at 0dB for the same audio level for WSJTX whilst WSPR2 shows -25dB to -15dB. [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-Scan-Signature: f38d515a9cad1e977fcfe251941a8120 Subject: Re: LF: Soundcard issues Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: 3039ac1d600c5092bdc81d5a X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hi Stefan Of course it is difficult to get steady reading because of the pulsing the noise, but I think we get the idea WSPR2 11 sits at 0dB for the same audio level for WSJTX whilst WSPR2 shows -25dB to -15dB. On 01/11/2012 17:33, Stefan Schäfer wrote: > Eddie, > > https://dl.dropbox.com/u/19882028/LF/serious.png > > 73, Stefan > > Am 01.11.2012 18:18, schrieb g3zjo: >> 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 > > > > ----- > 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 > >