LF: Re: WSPR or QRSS: which is better?

["James Moritz" <james.moritz@btopenworld.com>]

Dear Roger, LF Group,

> From watching off-air signals, I would agree with Andy that WSPR and QRSS3 
have roughly equal "sensitivity". But it depends also on band conditions. 
For example, on 500kHz a QRSS beacon signal can be expected to be fragmented 
much of the time by QSB at distances over a few hundred km, while WSPR can 
tolerate loss of quite a large portion of a sequence and still decode 
correctly. On the other hand, the bandwidth of QRSS can be tailored to suit 
conditions, a facility not currently available with WSPR.
G3KEV wrote:
> ...and where there is fade or drop out you can fill the gaps...
...with whatever takes your fancy; garbage in, garbage out (a bit like 
e-mail reflectors ;-),  but this is not receiving a signal, it is inventing 
a signal you imagine to exist. This may not be too important if you can 
identify the beacon by other means - usually by a pre-arranged frequency- 
and are just interested in monitoring how the level changes. But if anything 
is received at all, WSPR gives you immediate positive ID of a station, 
without requiring any external information.
Cheers, Jim Moritz
73 de M0BMU