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 wA3K86aJ021319 for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2018 21:08:13 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1gJ28p-0001fg-3s for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2018 20:03:31 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1gJ28f-0001fX-8S for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2018 20:03:21 +0000 Received: from omr-a019e.mx.aol.com ([204.29.186.67]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.91_59-0488984) (envelope-from ) id 1gJ28b-0004l2-RX for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2018 20:03:19 +0000 Received: from mtaomg-mbd01.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mbd01.mx.aol.com [172.26.252.15]) by omr-a019e.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 3FFD83800085 for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2018 16:03:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from core-mdc01b.mail.aol.com (core-mdc01.mail.aol.com [172.27.97.11]) by mtaomg-mbd01.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 1565F38000081 for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2018 16:03:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 74.98.249.32 by webjas-vab237.srv.aolmail.net (10.96.18.240) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Sat, 03 Nov 2018 16:03:15 -0400 Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2018 16:03:16 -0400 From: wa3tts@verizon.net To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Message-Id: <166db2c2756-1ec8-3528@webjas-vab237.srv.aolmail.net> In-Reply-To: <5BDDDA35.40808@posteo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-MB-Message-Type: User X-Mailer: JAS STD X-Originating-IP: [74.98.249.32] x-aol-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1afc0f5bddff040361 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) 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: Stafan: I believe WSPR-X  version 2.0r  was worth the upgrade for me, having used version 1.9r for about a year. And the 1.9r version was a  definite improvement from the prior version I was using, which I believe was 1.7r.  I believe I am in a moderate noise LF/MF/HF suburban environment,  [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [204.29.186.67 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: 09c1a181dc7b5fd4ce37590584a561d1 Subject: Re: LF: WSPR 475 kHz Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_18326_1224856185.1541275395925" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_50_60,HTML_MESSAGE, NO_REAL_NAME 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 ------=_Part_18326_1224856185.1541275395925 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Stafan: I believe WSPR-X=C2=A0 version 2.0r=C2=A0 was worth the upgrade for= me, having used version 1.9r for about a year. And the 1.9r version was a= =C2=A0 definite improvement from the prior version I was using, which I believe wa= s 1.7r.=C2=A0 I believe I am in a moderate noise LF/MF/HF suburban environm= ent,=C2=A0 perhaps an LF/MF station in a queiter location may not notice as much diffe= rence.=C2=A0More reading on the subject is needed on my part to better unde= rstand the improvements K1JT has made to sensitivity and signal decoding in these = newer beta versions. As always, many thanks for your beaconing. 73 Mike wa3tts -----Original Message----- From: DK7FC To: rsgb_lf_group Sent: Sat, Nov 3, 2018 1:27 pm Subject: Re: LF: WSPR 475 kHz Hi Mike, Interesting point. Is there a significant performance improvement of versi= on 2.0 relative to 1.9r ? Or, is it worth the effort to upgrade? 73, Stefan Am 03.11.2018 16:02, schrieb wa3tts@verizon.net: Stefan & All:=C2=A0 Indeed the propagation at MF has been favorable the pas= t 2 evenings, but I also believe the sensitivity improvements K1JT built in= to the 1.9r and 2.0r versions of WSJT-X are making a noticeable difference versus what could be accomplis= hed on WSPR2 a few years ago.=C2=A0 On the U.S. side, it may also help that= a fair portion of the calls signs shown below are those of operators withsome=C2=A0 weak signal VHF-UHF-SHF e= xpereince.=C2=A0 There is likely some prior skill transfer involved in maki= ng the transition to MF-LF for a new spectrum experience. KL7L has some very brief "days" coming soon, so it is not out of the realm= of possibilty.=C2=A0 Perhaps even on 2200m with very low A & K index condi= tions.... 73 Mike wa3tts ------=_Part_18326_1224856185.1541275395925 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Stafan: I believe WSPR-X  version 2= .0r  was worth the upgrade for me, having used version 1.9r for about = a year. And the 1.9r version was a 
<= br>
definite improvement from the prior ve= rsion I was using, which I believe was 1.7r.  I believe I am in a mode= rate noise LF/MF/HF suburban environment, 

perhaps an LF/MF station in a q= ueiter location may not notice as much difference. More reading on the= subject is needed on my part to better understand

the improvements K1JT has ma= de to sensitivity and signal decoding in these newer beta versions.

As always, = many thanks for your beaconing.

=
73 Mike wa3tts



-----Original Message--= ---
From: DK7FC <selberdenken@posteo.de>
To: rsgb_lf_group <= rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Sat, Nov 3, 2018 1:27 pm
Subje= ct: Re: LF: WSPR 475 kHz

Hi Mike,

Interesting point. Is there a significant performance improvement of version 2.0 relative to 1.9r ? Or, is it worth the effort to upgrade?

73, Stefan

Am 03.11.2018 16:02, schrieb wa3tts@verizon.net:
Stefan & All:  Indeed the propagation at MF has been favorable the past 2 evenings, but I also believe the sensitivity improvements K1JT built into the 1.9r and 2.0r versions
of WSJT-X are making a noticeable difference versus what could be accomplished on WSPR2 a few years ago.  On the U.S. side, it may also help that a fair portion of the calls signs
shown below are those of operators withsome  weak signal VHF-UHF-SHF expereince.  There is likely some prior skill transfer involved in making the transition to MF-LF for a new spectrum experience.

KL7L has some very brief "days" coming soon, so it is not out of the realm of possibilty.  Perhaps even on 2200m with very low A & K index conditions....

73 Mike wa3tts

------=_Part_18326_1224856185.1541275395925--