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;
Message-ID: <524DC0BA.7010503@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 21:08:42 +0200
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Stefan_Sch=E4fer?= <Stefan.Schaefer@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
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> <524DADA6.8060907@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <48B425BBD60E44C7800F06D852C0E8D5@AGB>
In-Reply-To: <48B425BBD60E44C7800F06D852C0E8D5@AGB>
Subject: Re: LF: WSPRX_08r3575
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Status: O

G

4X1RF and GW0EZY took a recording of my WSPR transmission and sent it to=20
me via dropbox, a wav file recorded in SpecLab.

I run the recordings in an endless loop and produced a set of decodes, 5=20
decodes for each setting, just to make sure that there is no random=20
difference in the S/N shown for the same settings. Mostly the S/N shown=20
was the same for a certain setting, maybe 1 of 5 differed by 1 dB. The=20
results were quite clear. I've done the test with strong signals=20
(GW0EZY) and weak signals (4X1RF). There average improvement was 2 dB,=20
maybe a bit more.

73, Stefan

Am 03.10.2013 20:45, schrieb Graham:
> How did  you  measure the  2 dB  Stefan ?
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Stefan Sch=E4fer" <Stefan.Schaefer@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 6:47 PM
> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> 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=20
>>> added.
>>
>> Thanks for all the infos.
>> Finally :-) During the time he developed WSPR-15 we were in regular=20
>> email contact. To that time i made some tests with DF6NM's slow WSPR=20
>> version, tests with 4X1RF and GW0EZY and others. We found that the=20
>> SpecLab noise blanker in front of the WSPR input (using VAC) made a=20
>> S/N improvement of at least 2 dB. Obviously he anyway didn't include=20
>> such a tool (which is much more useful on LF/MF as on the HF bands i=20
>> think) in the previous versions.
>>
>> Now the question is if the new intenal NB is more efficient than an=20
>> external SpecLab NB. One could do a test running 4 WSPR-x instances,=20
>> the old one, with and without a SpecLab NB and then the new one, with=20
>> and without a SpecLab NB... If the new one without a SpecLab NB=20
>> performs best, then this would be really an improvement over the=20
>> older version! If i can find the time i will do such a test at night.
>>
>> 73, Stefan/DK7FC
>>
>>