Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.67.23.138 with SMTP id ia10csp246406pad; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 12:13:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.185.166 with SMTP id fd6mr3931937wic.5.1380827593388; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 12:13:13 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id bz2si3634337wjc.108.1969.12.31.16.00.00; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 12:13:13 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) client-ip=195.171.43.25; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) smtp.mail=owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1VRntz-0004TY-Tb for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 19:45:31 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1VRntz-0004TP-Gt for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 19:45:31 +0100 Received: from smtpout3.wanadoo.co.uk ([80.12.242.59] helo=smtpout.wanadoo.co.uk) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1VRntx-0002xr-Uq for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 19:45:30 +0100 Received: from AGB ([95.145.225.137]) by mwinf5d40 with ME id YilS1m00p2yVYcn03ilT1y; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 20:45:29 +0200 Message-ID: <48B425BBD60E44C7800F06D852C0E8D5@AGB> From: "Graham" To: References: <524BF0F8.3070603@gmx.net> <524C0DF2.8000908@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <524C2B66.2050704@gmx.net> <524DADA6.8060907@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> In-Reply-To: <524DADA6.8060907@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 19:45:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416 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: How did you measure the 2 dB Stefan ? From: "Stefan Schäfer" Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 6:47 PM To: Subject: Re: LF: WSPRX_08r3575 [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.12.242.59 listed in list.dnswl.org] X-Scan-Signature: 086f3faad0220c9ae57a7913e711a86d Subject: Re: LF: WSPRX_08r3575 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="ISO-8859-15"; reply-type=response 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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME 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 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 3325 How did you measure the 2 dB Stefan ? -------------------------------------------------- From: "Stefan Schäfer" Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 6:47 PM To: Subject: Re: LF: WSPRX_08r3575 > Hi Tobias, > > Am 02.10.2013 16:19, schrieb Tobias DG3LV: >> Hi Stefan/LF ! >> >> Information on the SVN-server says, that there was a noise blanker added. > > Thanks for all the infos. > Finally :-) During the time he developed WSPR-15 we were in regular email > contact. To that time i made some tests with DF6NM's slow WSPR version, > tests with 4X1RF and GW0EZY and others. We found that the SpecLab noise > blanker in front of the WSPR input (using VAC) made a S/N improvement of > at least 2 dB. Obviously he anyway didn't include such a tool (which is > much more useful on LF/MF as on the HF bands i think) in the previous > versions. > > Now the question is if the new intenal NB is more efficient than an > external SpecLab NB. One could do a test running 4 WSPR-x instances, the > old one, with and without a SpecLab NB and then the new one, with and > without a SpecLab NB... If the new one without a SpecLab NB performs best, > then this would be really an improvement over the older version! If i can > find the time i will do such a test at night. > > 73, Stefan/DK7FC > >