Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by klubnl.pl (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id w1QE7JdU001893 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 15:07:22 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1eqJKY-0002B7-56 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 14:00:38 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1eqJKX-0002Ay-Gu for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 14:00:37 +0000 Received: from resqmta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net ([2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:35]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eqJKT-0004Hp-5a for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 14:00:36 +0000 Received: from resomta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.100]) by resqmta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id qJJLeDqESfhLfqJKPetxTB; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 14:00:29 +0000 X-DKIM-Result: Domain=comcast.net Result=Signature OK DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20161114; t=1519653629; bh=GxAN3qlBjJ2MRkHpzmFLSksDa3DEZaZjMs+SF4/53J0=; h=Received:Received:From:Subject:To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID; b=XeTtUvUVfYbFricB8JsYTVE2sP53w4FLW8ID/HibXAHMNXr7nM8xdWz9pBBRF5P2Y xoPdd0wFVM8RHInt3gRyzZhUxUCEDhR5tFYTy8Tixru8Ps/7hTRpbhOg6SM7rn7KuG TUQ+dmB0VJul0Lxhz+H0C34d8VQhLjmOzYlBEPqg4XH6oLAJOfWhqwHjnUmE2F7MrW AukxkfxuAu4aBglePUD1/TAxinLEPvVLYJP1oOda1eKbTqnuOls7Pzz72W931/mI6e WGWuJFG62wifB/5NWQkvb0L8vvztfCswi4VnxrYL6Pt8Z1UsCmyK243nzBY9RofXzD 27Gmeazx8hHHg== Received: from Optiplex980-PC ([73.4.253.141]) by resomta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id qJKNelAMP2IxbqJKOefme5; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 14:00:29 +0000 From: "jrusgrove@comcast.net" To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <22427f06-486d-f7fd-965f-70ed200d2b8d@n1bug.com> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 09:00:30 -0500 Message-ID: <1UQOCDLTUW.6WJZbKWncCq@optiplex980-pc> In-Reply-To: <22427f06-486d-f7fd-965f-70ed200d2b8d@n1bug.com> User-Agent: OEClassic/2.7 (Win7; P; 2017-02-12) X-Mailer: OEClassic/2.7 (Win7; P; 2017-02-12) X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfJHrST1vs6MdpILgG4xWMKLQS1PyuwXMzZPqrW/C2pXhwYGLbWxNXLyT/lYppVleHs51NEp+QK6EEpy6JEJVeuU6mUUtmFJQc/kuOkwpYEVZN7gvNcHj CxhDKkxjHyQE8gBUzcEwy6XLsnFnmWdk2mJZEFQrTUKuHGb8KiB2Cd1hiB8cLJDssMN0FYaZN93XTw== X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Paul Thanks for the test details and results ... well done! Jay [...] Content analysis details: (0.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (jrusgrove[at]comcast.net) 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 URIBL_SBL_A Contains URL's A record listed in the Spamhaus SBL blocklist [URIs: n1bug.com] 0.6 URIBL_SBL Contains an URL's NS IP listed in the Spamhaus SBL blocklist [URIs: n1bug.com] 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: cbf9d9751ac5f32708197d03fa6d8d74 Subject: LF: Re: [Lowfer] WSJT-X 1.9 vs 1.8 WSPR decoding test Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="AVeN=_HjyelmQKeYrASEMPNR8dstvogug2" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE, TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL autolearn=no version=2.63 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format --AVeN=_HjyelmQKeYrASEMPNR8dstvogug2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Paul Thanks for the test details and results ... well done! Jay ----- Original Message ----- From: N1BUG Reply-To: Discussion of the Lowfer \(US, European, & UK\) and MedFer b= ands=20 To: Discussion of the Lowfer (US, European, & UK) and MedFer bands=20 , 600 / 630 Meter Group <600mrg@w7ekb.com>,=20= rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org ,=20 rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk Sent: 2/26/2018 7:57:51 AM Subject: [Lowfer] WSJT-X 1.9 vs 1.8 WSPR decoding test Yesterday's release of WSJT-X 1.9.0rc2 came with this note:=20 "Improved decoding performance for WSPR mode, especially effective=20 at LF and MF". I wanted to put this to the test so overnight I ran=20 four instances of WSJT-X: 1.8.0 on both LF and MF using the call sign N1BUG/1 1.9.0rc2 on both LF and MF using the call sign N1BUG All spots were uploaded to WSPRnet. Both decoders on LF were fed the same audio stream. The setup is a=20 simple SDR providing I/Q input to a physical sound card, HDSDR=20 software output into a virtual audio cable, both versions of WSJT-X=20= taking input from the output of that virtual cable. The MF setup was the same except using a different SDR feeding a=20 different physical sound card. I used identical settings in all four instances of WSJT-X with the=20 exception of different input audio source (virtual cable) for LF and M= F. All of this was running in Windows 10. I watched incoming spots very closely for the first several hours.=20 There was not much activity on LF at the time but on MF I saw 1.9=20 decode many WSPR transmissions that 1.8 failed to decode. Some of=20 these were extreme weak signal down to -32 with barely visible=20 traces on the waterfall. Others were not with some clearly visible=20 and decoding up to -23 in 1.9, yet no decode in 1.8 despite being=20 very clear on the waterfall in that version. I did not see a single=20= instance where 1.8 decoded something that 1.9 failed to decode. This morning I took a quick look at statistics: MF - During a 12 hour period ending 1145z, 1.9 decoded a total of=20 933 WSPR transmissions while 1.8 decoded only 883. LF - During a 12 hour period ending 1150z, 1.9 decoded 253 WSPR=20 transmissions while 1.8 decoded only 183. In all of this I do not see any obvious spurious decodes from either=20= version. No strange call signs or stations displaced on the map from=20= where you would expect them to be. I was not expecting to see such a large difference. I make no claim=20= that this result is representative of what others will see. I am=20 simply reporting the results of an experiment carried out here. 73, Paul N1BUG ______________________________________________________________ Lowfer mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/lowfer Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Lowfer@mailman.qth.net Post must be less than 50KB total for message plus attachment! This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html --AVeN=_HjyelmQKeYrASEMPNR8dstvogug2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
Paul
 
Thanks for the test details and results ... well done!
 
Jay
 
----- Original Message -----
From: N1BUG <paul@n1b= ug.com>
Reply-To: Discussion of the Lowfer \(US, European, & U= K\) and MedFer bands <low= fer@mailman.qth.net>
To: Discussion of the Lowfer (US, European, & UK) and = MedFer bands <lowfer@mail= man.qth.net>, 600 / 630 Meter Group <600mrg@w7ekb.com>, rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org &l= t;rsgb_lf_group@blacks= heep.org>, rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk <rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk= >
Sent: 2/26/2018 7:57:51 AM
Subject: [Lowfer] WSJT-X 1.9 vs 1.8 WSPR decoding test
Yesterday's release of WSJT-X 1.9.0rc2 came with this note:
"Impro= ved decoding performance for WSPR mode, especially effective
at LF= and MF". I wanted to put this to the test so overnight I ran
four= instances of WSJT-X:

1.8.0 on both LF and MF using the call si= gn N1BUG/1

1.9.0rc2 on both LF and MF using the call sign N1BUG=

All spots were uploaded to WSPRnet.

Both decoders on LF= were fed the same audio stream. The setup is a
simple SDR providi= ng I/Q input to a physical sound card, HDSDR
software output into = a virtual audio cable, both versions of WSJT-X
taking input from t= he output of that virtual cable.

The MF setup was the same exce= pt using a different SDR feeding a
different physical sound card.<= BR>
I used identical settings in all four instances of WSJT-X with = the
exception of different input audio source (virtual cable) for = LF and MF.

All of this was running in Windows 10.

I watc= hed incoming spots very closely for the first several hours.
There= was not much activity on LF at the time but on MF I saw 1.9
decod= e many WSPR transmissions that 1.8 failed to decode. Some of
these= were extreme weak signal down to -32 with barely visible
traces o= n the waterfall. Others were not with some clearly visible
and dec= oding up to -23 in 1.9, yet no decode in 1.8 despite being
very cl= ear on the waterfall in that version. I did not see a single
insta= nce where 1.8 decoded something that 1.9 failed to decode.

This= morning I took a quick look at statistics:

MF - During a 12 ho= ur period ending 1145z, 1.9 decoded a total of
933 WSPR transmissi= ons while 1.8 decoded only 883.

LF - During a 12 hour period en= ding 1150z, 1.9 decoded 253 WSPR
transmissions while 1.8 decoded o= nly 183.

In all of this I do not see any obvious spurious decod= es from either
version. No strange call signs or stations displace= d on the map from
where you would expect them to be.

I was = not expecting to see such a large difference. I make no claim
that= this result is representative of what others will see. I am
simpl= y reporting the results of an experiment carried out here.

73,<= BR>Paul N1BUG
_____________________________________________________= _________
Lowfer mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo= /lowfer
Help: http= ://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Lowfer@mailman.qth.net
Post must be less t= han 50KB total for message plus attachment!

This list hosted by= : http://www.qsl.net
Please hel= p support this email list: = http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
--AVeN=_HjyelmQKeYrASEMPNR8dstvogug2--