Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.67.23.138 with SMTP id ia10csp241274pad; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:06:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.202.195 with SMTP id kk3mr3077040wjc.49.1380823569701; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 11:06:09 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id fw4si3525474wjb.97.1969.12.31.16.00.00; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 11:06:09 -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 1VRmzr-00041p-IZ for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 18:47:31 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1VRmzr-00041g-5Y for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 18:47:31 +0100 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 1VRmzp-0002fn-Je for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 18:47:30 +0100 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 r93HlSl7013448 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 19:47:28 +0200 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 r93HlSeR011410 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 19:47:28 +0200 Message-ID: <524DADA6.8060907@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 19:47:18 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-15?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: <524BF0F8.3070603@gmx.net> <524C0DF2.8000908@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <524C2B66.2050704@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <524C2B66.2050704@gmx.net> X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) 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 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. [...] Content analysis details: (-1.4 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] -0.7 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: e09cca6d8e44a91eadbdfb3e1b8aec09 Subject: Re: LF: WSPRX_08r3575 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; 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 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 3324 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