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: <960AA184814B4EF6AE39CB7C6950F167@AGB>
From: "Graham" <g8fzk@g8fzk.fsnet.co.uk>
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> <524DC0BA.7010503@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
In-Reply-To: <524DC0BA.7010503@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 20:13:14 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Importance: Normal
Subject: Re: LF: WSPRX_08r3575
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="ISO-8859-15";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Status: O

The  software  reported  2 dB  change  ?

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Stefan Schäfer" <Stefan.Schaefer@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 8:08 PM
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Subject: Re: LF: WSPRX_08r3575

> G
>
> 4X1RF and GW0EZY took a recording of my WSPR transmission and sent it to 
> me via dropbox, a wav file recorded in SpecLab.
>
> I run the recordings in an endless loop and produced a set of decodes, 5 
> decodes for each setting, just to make sure that there is no random 
> difference in the S/N shown for the same settings. Mostly the S/N shown 
> was the same for a certain setting, maybe 1 of 5 differed by 1 dB. The 
> results were quite clear. I've done the test with strong signals (GW0EZY) 
> and weak signals (4X1RF). There average improvement was 2 dB, maybe a bit 
> more.
>
> 73, Stefan
>
> Am 03.10.2013 20:45, schrieb Graham:
>> How did  you  measure the  2 dB  Stefan ?
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Stefan Schäfer" <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 
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>