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: <524DF565.6000806@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 00:53:25 +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>
In-Reply-To: <524DADA6.8060907@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
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

Tobias,

I've made a short test using the new version and the old simultaneously,=20
using the same audio input. There are no decodes at all in the new=20
version, with or without the SpecLab NB enabled. The waterfal looks=20
equal in both versions...
Does it work on your side?

73, Stefan


Am 03.10.2013 19:47, schrieb Stefan Sch=E4fer:
> 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 older=20
> version! If i can find the time i will do such a test at night.
>
> 73, Stefan/DK7FC
>