Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on lipkowski.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN, FREEMAIL_FROM,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, SPF_PASS,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 X-Spam-DCC: INFN-TO: mailn 1233; Body=2 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mailn.lipkowski.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u1) with ESMTP id uB3Jdqp8002173 for ; Sat, 3 Dec 2016 20:39:53 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1cDG7S-00080p-AN for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 19:37:10 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1cDG7S-00080d-0O for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 19:37:10 +0000 Received: from mail-wj0-x235.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c01::235]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1cDG7P-00013P-EH for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 19:37:08 +0000 Received: by mail-wj0-x235.google.com with SMTP id qp4so258592917wjc.3 for ; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 11:37:07 -0800 (PST) X-DKIM-Result: Domain=gmail.com Result=Good and Known Domain DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=7xkImJGpDNKFL3nkRDD+GdBDdJIKLUaFpTqJYVPvUHg=; b=OcQ/BghTx98QotK6KGJTZdQd60nohQf8F+SYhXt9hdd/OJ5//K/1yBr/Nt3LH832m/ ky7h4MhLJ/rs7AHVtzS6rze0jAvGVQ2w+UfZVqvE4jdUXy99bxxnFXMFt828caEVmBRa xfFiapU4QtSsB0Af/r/Nk+mY22sOGffutKcCAWrHl+Lu5FF6vixiY4ddXauBTXDKMUi3 8JArcI4pasjJtFsOOkJ2qm8HL1hWqTQzq91NBRn5JN+dXnucnXHLJfa3PpqQqj7XGU10 vcK8Uf75uhASW3+Bkh0Sy8jKeDi6ABRkmZ5QgM/AMuUCPrCu7VIGQEW8N01Qgjs2BHq+ hAOA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=7xkImJGpDNKFL3nkRDD+GdBDdJIKLUaFpTqJYVPvUHg=; b=aVgEXD9ZqWc+0jytq315XKPzl1+zQJv516WAkeYRWLXWQ0YMrpHCD+uW3JgKjv+8Fc c5U0XpUE2LNp83bELOA0o87BwZRFr1+Xnl73XwdNP0d/MTMReZPDoOkqYnQi7rUNGJF5 U72v+YdlPKD4PWkjZ9fI4z3VedYRkvVhXucLDz9CxE2b0LSIgl9r64oA+YUnzQlgI8hp JdxPrBqrlh5OD3ND/Fn/r8X/U12B6wcpHi8ckzlVdNn4pwyzM2X/5vFrZ74AtouYm1Qv R/TSDFaDj7YGoc63I+nChm/9JCu4dPnJ5Ii74c2T1OxIwQ1rBKxbn4mHQQXr/7zYJPZ5 Icbg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC00kh3YjguoHMXIUOGhoLne1cRsI3wquY0quc5tqb5ARufleIf3aeFzZQ73I4Jxn8jJ7ogDsQi/fDpFHRQ== X-Received: by 10.194.18.196 with SMTP id y4mr45166621wjd.73.1480793826250; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 11:37:06 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.172.193 with HTTP; Sat, 3 Dec 2016 11:36:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5842F0D6.90805@abelian.org> References: <158c17dc012-1cbc-28d9@webprd-a15.mail.aol.com> <5842F0D6.90805@abelian.org> From: Domenico IZ7SLZ Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 20:36:25 +0100 Message-ID: To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" X-Scan-Signature: 138e3b341e0543401afa7e97ee054540 Subject: Re: LF: EbNaut 137.477 kHz 1 Dec Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0444ea69ffd2370542c62d4c 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 2.75 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 9676 --f46d0444ea69ffd2370542c62d4c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 GE Paul and all, unsuccessfull wavs are uploaded in the same folder. Thanks in advance for your analisys; hope to catch some more decodes. 73 and good weekend all. Domenico, iz7slz On 3 December 2016 at 17:20, Paul Nicholson wrote: > > Nice work Joe and Domenico. Thanks for linking the wav files, > I downloaded and reproduced the three decodes using the Linux > decoder to get exactly the same results. > > I wanted to see if normalising for amplitude variation made > any difference with the LF signals. > > It didn't, the background noise is very constant so there is > negligible normalisation effect. > > > not bad for a message of 63 characters on LF sent in less > > than 30 minutes ! > > The 02:00 decode: -39.6dB in audio bandwidth, 2.3 characters > per minute, 62% of channel capacity. > > Domenico, if you want to upload the unsuccessful wavs, I can > check them to see how far short of a decode they were. > > -- > Paul Nicholson > -- > > --f46d0444ea69ffd2370542c62d4c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
GE Paul and all,

unsucces= sfull wavs are uploaded in the same folder.
Thanks in advance for= your analisys;=C2=A0 hope to catch some more decodes.

73 and = good weekend all.
Domenico, iz7slz

On 3 December 2016 at 17:20, Paul Nicho= lson <vlf0403@abelian.org> wrote:

Nice work Joe and Domenico.=C2=A0 Thanks for linking the wav files,
I downloaded and reproduced the three decodes using the Linux
decoder to get exactly the same results.

I wanted to see if normalising for amplitude variation made
any difference with the LF signals.

It didn't, the background noise is very constant so there is
negligible normalisation effect.

> not bad for a message of 63 characters on LF sent in less
> than 30 minutes !

 The 02:00 decode: -39.6dB in audio bandwidth, 2.3 characters
per minute, 62% of channel capacity.

Domenico, if you want to upload the unsuccessful wavs, I can
check them to see how far short of a decode they were.

--
Paul Nicholson
--


--f46d0444ea69ffd2370542c62d4c--