MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B642235FE9444C2A85F37190C576DEB3@malcoHP>
References: <B642235FE9444C2A85F37190C576DEB3@malcoHP>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 11:47:00 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJW4BFns5xTAGLFtOqbfuSjCATgy+7WB=ZVtfFhgziro7FuR9w@mail.gmail.com>
From: PA7EY <pa7ey@amsat.org>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: WSPR DECODES
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdca61027180c05249203ea
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Status: O

--047d7bdca61027180c05249203ea
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi Mal,

Your observations are in line with what I have observed many times most on
LF and occasionally on MF. In my case, local noise is the main cause. At
least that is what I thought of as the reason.
But the opposite happens sometimes as well. I barely see something on the
waterfall but there is a decode, even with fairly acceptable S/N ratio's
making deep-search false positives as reason for the decode not very likely.

My situation, noise wise, is however very different from yours.
Can you share some screenshots from failing decodes?

73 Ulrich, PA7EY

2015-11-15 10:37 GMT+01:00 mal hamilton <g3kevmal@talktalk.net>:

> MF
> I have been observing WSPR signals this past couple of days on 474.2 Khz
> and although most are Decoding there are a number of weak signals visible
> on the  waterfall that do not decode. I am in a quiet location so noise is
> not a problem. My clock and input are set up as specified.
> Had these station been using QRSS the copy would be perfect.
> also
> the same applies to Opera signals visible on the waterfall but do not
> decode, usually weak.
> QRSS has the advantage that the raw signal observed is immediately
> readable on the screen even the barely visible.
>
> G3KEV
>
>

--047d7bdca61027180c05249203ea
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Hi Mal,<div><br></div><div>Your observations are in line w=
ith what I have observed many times most on LF and occasionally on MF. In m=
y case, local noise is the main cause. At least that is what I thought of a=
s the reason.</div><div>But the opposite happens sometimes as well. I barel=
y see something on the waterfall but there is a decode, even with fairly ac=
ceptable S/N ratio&#39;s making deep-search false positives as reason for t=
he decode not very likely.</div><div><br></div><div>My situation, noise wis=
e, is however very different from yours.</div><div>Can you share some scree=
nshots from failing decodes?</div><div><br></div><div>73 Ulrich, PA7EY</div=
></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2015-11-15=
 10:37 GMT+01:00 mal hamilton <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:g3kev=
mal@talktalk.net" target=3D"_blank">g3kevmal@talktalk.net</a>&gt;</span>:<b=
r><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:=
1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div style=3D"FONT-SIZE:12pt;FONT-FAMILY:&#39;Calibri&#39;;COLOR:#000000">
<div>MF</div>
<div>I have been observing WSPR signals this past couple of days on 474.2 K=
hz=20
and although most are Decoding there are a number of weak signals visible o=
n=20
the=C2=A0 waterfall that do not decode. I am in a quiet location so noise i=
s not=20
a problem. My clock and input are set up as specified.</div>
<div>Had these station been using QRSS the copy would be perfect. </div>
<div>also</div>
<div>the same applies to Opera signals visible on the waterfall but do not=
=20
decode, usually weak.</div>
<div>QRSS has the advantage that the raw signal observed is immediately rea=
dable=20
on the screen even the barely visible.</div>
<div>=C2=A0</div>
<div>G3KEV</div>
<div>=C2=A0</div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--047d7bdca61027180c05249203ea--