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=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 X-Spam-DCC: : mailn 1480; Body=2 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by lipkowski.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id v68Ca74E000521 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2017 14:36:09 +0200 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1dTotx-0004Jk-Qm for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 08 Jul 2017 13:31:57 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1dTotx-0004Jb-08 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 08 Jul 2017 13:31:57 +0100 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1dTott-0005Bi-0e for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 08 Jul 2017 13:31:55 +0100 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D91AC20E5C for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2017 14:31:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 3x4W7R0WYMz106N for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2017 14:31:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5960D0B2.7030801@posteo.de> Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2017 14:31:46 +0200 From: DK7FC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <15ca21dc75e-1e15-bcda@webprd-m105.mail.aol.com> <0f9558b4-457d-a395-58c9-7f9be3393cdd@sky.com> <4767d79f-2bf6-d838-bfd4-3e78102d6f5d@abelian.org> <510c15eb-b57a-0ebb-9037-1f83e0652cf2@sky.com> <933fcc32-d4c9-10cd-14b4-c179d66e27f9@abelian.org> <7ab80e0f-40d7-6b07-19c1-f4b256d47c52@sky.com> <594DB217.8060707@posteo.de> <2eb826d6-d299-7b37-cf64-f5bef6718f24@abelian.org> <595E4420.7060405@posteo.de> <595FB81A.5090606@posteo.de> <45775d6c-f091-37c0-0907-f01688c69b03@abelian.org> <5960BAC0.7000403@posteo.de> In-Reply-To: <5960BAC0.7000403@posteo.de> X-Scan-Signature: a6b6ffaf48fdddf1ed5c25dc4bf03ee1 Subject: Re: LF: Octo-soundcard for the Raspi, another question Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed 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 2.75 Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 12199 ...another test on all 6 inputs. I generated 3 wav files of each channel pair and played them in SpecLab. BTW the signal generator is my DDS VFO that i used in the first VLF kite experiments. http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/schaefer_vlf/VLF/ch1...6.png Looks like CH2 and CH6 are the best ones, at least here. CH3 and CH4 is quite the same. Paul, if you can't find the reason (e.g. an error on my side), i.e. if the effect is genuine and hardware based, i would simply tend to use CH2 and CH6 for the input signal and CH4 for PPS. Eventually i decide to build a 3 channel RX for 2x H +1x E and use CH3 as the 3rd input. Curious about the analysis results... 73, Stefan Am 08.07.2017 12:58, schrieb DK7FC: > Hi Paul, > > Meanwhile i did more tests: > > Used two audio isolation transformers to DC-separate the inputs: No > difference. > > Am 07.07.2017 20:02, schrieb Paul Nicholson: >> Can you send or put on the web a short .vt file of ch1 and ch2, >> (after vttime, vtresample) long enough to contain at least one >> or two good glitches? > http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/schaefer_vlf/VLF/record.tar > A fresh 2 channel file, with a tone at 1 kHz on both channels. I also > added the log files. > (some day i will have my own Raspi-based webserver, but there are > still to many open projects already). > > It looks like the effect is even more expressed at 1 kHz relative to > 500 Hz. > > In the attachment you can see how it looks in SpecLab. > First the attachment size was 294 kB. The mail didn't arrive on the > reflector. Now it is resized to 238 kB. Let's see if it comes through > now :-) > > 73, Stefan