Return-Path: X-Spam-DCC: paranoid 1169; Body=2 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on lipkowski.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.3 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by paranoid.lipkowski.org (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id s78LqZU3027916 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 23:52:35 +0200 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1XFs1x-0007Ul-Gn for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 22:48:57 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1XFs1x-0007Uc-5k for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 22:48:57 +0100 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1XFs1u-0007dq-Tz for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 22:48:56 +0100 Received: from Clemens0811 ([79.237.152.248]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MFLhE-1XAPzd0fAa-00EMO5 for ; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 23:48:53 +0200 From: "Clemens Paul" To: References: <095C9D4E586E45CAA3FE071EA4EA9818@HPG5401fr> <53E0F872.3030500@gmail.com> <64A3B1F0647248229C5C374887AA2FCB@F6CNI> <53E1EC0B.2060309@gmail.com> <1686C40AF97B4ABE99024972373C232A@HPG5401fr> <96662FC1BCA8402098A702D935EEC66F@F6CNI> <9556CA31D58145AFA57960399F67FE98@Clemens0811> In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 23:48:58 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.1.7601.17609 Thread-Index: Ac+zMhsDGT5vp9E3SzW0TuXzFS/0UgAHrJhA X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:eyImQJ1VopgLBhl5QizXOh+wtMHRPbH3qG6wBsnrV6ArpKeUEQZ FzPrG23x50UjeluAuup2qT3ClIKct8kZdxGaBTvBWxegt5W0qqQ9tqxQVLj/KOgB46FSjGa aKMy4A14MdxmHcNKUqjeMJfFvrp456r3ycSPnQdNSWWAtGzM6nTyHKrySBXlx9LR8eT21ah 8LtvibRQ4bde2GlQxZSAg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; X-Scan-Signature: 8556389a5ea14fbbf9b9d801ab70c592 Subject: RE: LF: RE: Re: Testing now a new RX antenna on MF Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 10.1.3.10 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 187 Hi Roeloff, while 0dB SNR referenced to the RX BW is commonly defined as the "minimum discernible signal" I agree with you that with the listening skills of an experienced operator and low cw speed 10dB below "MDS" are possible under certain circumstances which you have described. Just played again with G4JNT's genious utility SNDemo http://www.g4jnt.com/DownLoad/SNDemo.exe and it confirms what you are saying including that 300Hz pitch is easier to decode than 500Hz or even 800Hz. 73 Clemens DL4RAJ >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org >[mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of Roelof Bakker >Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 7:55 PM >To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org >Subject: Re: LF: RE: Re: Testing now a new RX antenna on MF > >Hello Clemens, > >> E.g., if your FFT is set to a bin width of say 5Hz and a >carrier lies >> 20dB over >> the DANL (displayed average noise level) it will have a SNR >of zero dB >> in a >> 500Hz "IF"-bandwidth and therefore will be barely audible. > >The brain of a skilled listener can simulate a bandpass filter with a >width of 50 Hz. >Hence your FFT bin width of say 5Hz and a carrier of 20dB over >DANL will >be clearly audible. >Unfortunately the human brain needs white noise to work >against, so a band >full of interfering signals will exhaust the listener before >long. On a >quiet band it works great. >This problem is solved by using a filter bandwidth of 10 - 20 >Hz for aural >copy of Morse Code. > >I believe that the "human brain filter bandwidth" is frequency >dependent. >When I started chasing NDB's, a beat note of 500 Hz was used. >Over time this has changed to 300 Hz! >Such a low beat note can be a problem with an analogue >receiver due to >less than perfect filter skirts. With SDR's the problem does not exist. > >73, >Roelof, PAoRDT > > >