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 x3C8j4Xj030112 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 10:45:10 +0200 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1hErek-0004Hh-1I for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 09:35:30 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1hEreS-0004HQ-8b for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 09:35:12 +0100 Received: from lethe.lipkowski.org ([151.80.54.59] helo=lipkowski.org) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1hEreQ-0001gG-KX for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 09:35:10 +0100 Received: from mailn.lipkowski.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lipkowski.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id x3C8Vne5028659 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 10:31:50 +0200 Received: from localhost (sq5bpf@localhost) by mailn.lipkowski.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) with ESMTP id x3C8Vnsv028655 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 10:31:49 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: mailn.lipkowski.org: sq5bpf owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 10:31:48 +0200 (CEST) From: Jacek Lipkowski To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score-sq5bpf: -2.9 () ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.75 on 10.1.3.10 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 the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: For some reason the results i get from ebnaut are different depending on signal bandwidth. For Stefan's latest 2970.1Hz transmission it is better to use 10Hz sample rate than 240Hz: 10Hz: sq5bpf@jitter:/stuff2/sq5bpf/vlf_stefan2$ vtblank -v -d0.0007 -a22 -t 70 < pliktmp7 | vtmult -f 2970.1 | vtresample -r 240 | vtresample -r 10 |vtraw -oa | ebnaut -dp16K21A -r10 -c2 -v -k16 -S6 -N7 -PS [...] Content analysis details: (-0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record X-Scan-Signature: 138e3b341e0543401afa7e97ee054540 Subject: LF: ebnaut results depend on sample rate Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII 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=none 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 For some reason the results i get from ebnaut are different depending on signal bandwidth. For Stefan's latest 2970.1Hz transmission it is better to use 10Hz sample rate than 240Hz: 10Hz: sq5bpf@jitter:/stuff2/sq5bpf/vlf_stefan2$ vtblank -v -d0.0007 -a22 -t 70 < pliktmp7 | vtmult -f 2970.1 | vtresample -r 240 | vtresample -r 10 |vtraw -oa | ebnaut -dp16K21A -r10 -c2 -v -k16 -S6 -N7 -PS -L 50000 vtblank: selected channel: 1 = -:1 vtblank: channels: 1, sample_rate: 48000 vtblank: hfactor: 0.000e+00 vtblank: afactor: 22.000 initial reference phase 88.1 amplitude 8.289e-04 phase 0 0 0 0 0 vtblank: end of input vtblank: dropsum 0 50041841, nfp 359999999 vtblank: dropfactor 0 1.390e-01 phase 1 180 180 180 180 found rank 6348 ber 4.2147e-01 Eb/N0 -2.0 M -2.316530794e-02 ph 1 180,180,180,180 [DK7FC/P] carrier phase: -10.7 deg carrier Eb/N0: -0.3 dB carrier Es/N0: -15.26 dB carrier S/N: 15.70 dB in 133.5 uHz, -23.04 dB in 1Hz, -57.02 dB in 2.5kHz elapsed 98 [... and no more decodes ] 240Hz: sq5bpf@jitter:/stuff2/sq5bpf/vlf_stefan2$ vtblank -v -d0.0007 -a22 -t 70 < pliktmp7 | vtmult -f 2970.1 | vtresample -r 240 |vtraw -oa | ebnaut -dp16K21A -r240 -c2 -v -k16 -S6 -N7 -PS -L 50000 vtblank: selected channel: 1 = -:1 vtblank: channels: 1, sample_rate: 48000 vtblank: hfactor: 0.000e+00 vtblank: afactor: 22.000 initial reference phase 89.2 amplitude 1.953e-02 phase 0 0 0 0 0 vtblank: end of input vtblank: dropsum 0 50041841, nfp 359999999 vtblank: dropfactor 0 1.390e-01 found rank 43444 ber 4.0144e-01 Eb/N0 -0.0 M -5.377145410e-01 ph 0 0,0,0,0 [___!NL&] carrier phase: 0.2 deg carrier Eb/N0: -1.8 dB carrier Es/N0: -16.72 dB carrier S/N: 14.24 dB in 133.5 uHz, -24.51 dB in 1Hz, -58.48 dB in 2.5kHz elapsed 96 phase 1 180 180 180 180 found rank 15563 ber 4.2067e-01 Eb/N0 -1.9 M -5.445608497e-01 ph 1 180,180,180,180 [DK7FC/P] carrier phase: -11.8 deg carrier Eb/N0: -1.5 dB carrier Es/N0: -16.43 dB carrier S/N: 14.54 dB in 133.5 uHz, -24.21 dB in 1Hz, -58.19 dB in 2.5kHz elapsed 102 [...] phase 17 180 180 150 150 found rank 16679 ber 4.3029e-01 Eb/N0 -3.1 M -5.484929085e-01 ph 17 180,180,150,150 [DK7FC/P] carrier phase: 3.7 deg carrier Eb/N0: -1.6 dB carrier Es/N0: -16.53 dB carrier S/N: 14.43 dB in 133.5 uHz, -24.31 dB in 1Hz, -58.29 dB in 2.5kHz elapsed 201 With a couple of previous transmissions the result was better with 240Hz than with 10Hz. Not much of a difference, but this is the reason i've always used 240Hz. Paul, any idea why there is a difference, and how to determine the best sample rate? VY 73 Jacek / SQ5BPF