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 wA9IpUVb004659 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 19:51:31 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1gLBnL-00072D-TO for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 18:46:15 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1gLBnL-000724-1k for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 18:46:15 +0000 Received: from rhcavuit02.kulnet.kuleuven.be ([2a02:2c40:0:c0::25:130]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91_59-0488984) (envelope-from ) id 1gLBnI-00034v-T6 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 18:46:13 +0000 X-KULeuven-Envelope-From: rik.strobbe@kuleuven.be X-KULeuven-Scanned: Found to be clean X-KULeuven-ID: CD561120013.A4A9E X-KULeuven-Information: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Received: from icts-p-smtps-2.cc.kuleuven.be (icts-p-smtps-2e.kulnet.kuleuven.be [134.58.240.34]) by rhcavuit02.kulnet.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD561120013 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 19:46:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from ICTS-S-EXMBX21.luna.kuleuven.be (icts-s-exmbx21.luna.kuleuven.be [10.112.11.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by icts-p-smtps-2.cc.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF6C8200A3; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 19:46:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from ICTS-S-EXMBX27.luna.kuleuven.be (10.112.11.62) by ICTS-S-EXMBX21.luna.kuleuven.be (10.112.11.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 19:46:07 +0100 Received: from ICTS-S-EXMBX27.luna.kuleuven.be ([fe80::291a:cc4f:6953:698a]) by ICTS-S-EXMBX27.luna.kuleuven.be ([fe80::291a:cc4f:6953:698a%25]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 19:46:07 +0100 X-Kuleuven: This mail passed the K.U.Leuven mailcluster From: Rik Strobbe To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" , "rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk" Thread-Topic: JT9-2 and JT9-5 mode application: shown S/N values Thread-Index: AQHUeFtwMvTNYXf77E6WsZULqay54A== Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 18:46:07 +0000 Message-ID: <1541789098516.95370@kuleuven.be> References: <1541712573053.31739@kuleuven.be> <0a5402bd-72b3-f9d7-0eeb-52897ff2a4d4@n1bug.com> <1541715141849.85703@kuleuven.be>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: nl-BE, en-GB, en-US Content-Language: nl-BE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.112.50.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 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 @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Dear all, just a short notice that the shown S/N values are those delivered by the JT9 decoder, not taking the audio conversion into account. This means that the real S/N values are about 3dB lower (more negative) that shown for JT9-2 and 7dB for JT9-5. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [2a02:2c40:0:c0:0:0:25:130 listed in] [list.dnswl.org] -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: 63130203bdd9ddf2cbf93b2de3d1651e Subject: LF: JT9-2 and JT9-5 mode application: shown S/N values Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_154178909851695370kuleuvenbe_" 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 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 --_000_154178909851695370kuleuvenbe_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all, just a short notice that the shown S/N values are those delivered by the JT= 9 decoder, not taking the audio conversion into account. This means that the real S/N values are about 3dB lower (more negative) tha= t shown for JT9-2 and 7dB for JT9-5. I did some test this afternoon that comfirms this: for JT9(-1) and JT9-2 si= gnal of the same amplitude and added to the same noise the shown S/N values= for the JT9-2 signal were in average 2.7dB higher that for the JT9(-1) si= gnal. Although the S/N values are "just numbers", what really matters is if the s= ignal decodes or not, I will correct this in the next release. ? 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T --_000_154178909851695370kuleuvenbe_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear all,


just a short notice that the shown S/N values are those delivered b= y the JT9 decoder, not taking the audio conversion into account.

This means that the real S/N values are about 3dB lower (more negative) = that shown for JT9-2 and 7dB for JT9-5.

I did some test this afternoon that comfirms this: for JT9(-1) and = JT9-2 signal of the same amplitude and added to the same noise the shown S/= N values  for the JT9-2 signal were in average 2.7dB higher that = for the JT9(-1) signal.

Although the S/N values are "just numbers", what really m= atters is if the signal decodes or not, I will correct this in the next rel= ease.

​

73, Rik  ON7YD - OR7T


--_000_154178909851695370kuleuvenbe_--