Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.67.23.138 with SMTP id ia10csp51406pad; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 05:14:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.109.35 with SMTP id hp3mr1313478wjb.55.1380888843446; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 05:14:03 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id je9si2155096wic.3.1969.12.31.16.00.00; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 05:14:03 -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 1VS34h-0007fC-A7 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 11:57:35 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1VS34g-0007f3-NU for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 11:57:34 +0100 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1VS34e-0005wh-U4 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 11:57:33 +0100 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([91.38.37.118]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MQih7-1VGJWR2cBx-00U0Rg for ; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 12:57:30 +0200 Message-ID: <524E9F14.9000208@gmx.net> Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 12:57:24 +0200 From: Tobias DG3LV User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 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> <524DF565.6000806@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> In-Reply-To: <524DF565.6000806@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:ReSjK2awN9ESD1gegN+JtnZYi8lx3t8DfwDi3AbC5JPFiH+6zxe qICL8MKe9cfCa/jpZp+VQJFlc7QCo4qomaxVihnO3/h3ZLWvpWMDrZBLMqN8bjg9nwZJcqC RG6KH/O1panCayNocEsAyrCR2NQg1gy75pAj7Y7RJYzdkntYoS/Lfqiz6JElKLVdTe3Y1rs 8gOiGWv9tKuvuoUSZJIfg== X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) 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 ! ??? It decodes as well as the previous version "3058". Decodes down to -33dB have been recorded here (mode WSPR-2). Maybe a problem with installation directory name? (NO "Spaces"!) [...] Content analysis details: (-0.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [212.227.17.22 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (dg3lv[at]gmx.net) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.7 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: 3f8d74a8c70dd416d0a3a1dbcb9bb89f Subject: Re: LF: WSPRX_08r3575 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; 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 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 3330 Hi Stefan ! ??? It decodes as well as the previous version "3058". Decodes down to -33dB have been recorded here (mode WSPR-2). Maybe a problem with installation directory name? (NO "Spaces"!) BTW : congrats to G0HNW, distance 811km at daytime/noon ! WSPR-2: 10:00h -24 1.2 0.475673 0 G0HNW IO93 23 73 de dg3lv Tobias Am 04.10.2013 00:53, schrieb Stefan Schäfer: > Tobias, > > I've made a short test using the new version and the old simultaneously, > using the same audio input. There are no decodes at all in the new > version, with or without the SpecLab NB enabled. The waterfal looks > equal in both versions... > Does it work on your side? > > 73, Stefan > > > Am 03.10.2013 19:47, schrieb Stefan Schäfer: >> 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 >> > >