Rik - thanks for this - my experiences to date operating from a Central city location in Tiajin China was that WSPR outperformed even dot20 slow qrss in an awfully screen noisy environment - now this was at 500kHz not 137 so QSB etc kinda different.
I tried for a long time to catch SM6BHZ on shortpath on all QRSS modes over a period but the only time I have positive ID on multiple nights (really positive not squinting and brain eliminating certain squiggles) was on WSPR using two PC's and a buffered output from the R75 - the visual noise and type of Chinese squiggles made it near impossible to see clearly what was going on - but save on one night when Im pretty sure I had a clean QRSS reception of WD2XNS from over the Pole - conditions that night were "remarkable" from memory -
However working out of Singapore/Sabah it was different where visual QRSS outperformed WSPR...different QRM/QRN impulse noises..
Different QRM/Source noises appeared to give different results -
If anyone is interested the Transpolar North Route to Alaska is still closed (dang it) I can just detect HGA22 visually at dot 60 slow - so some 45dBs or more of attenuation still in place :-((
Laurence Kl7UK remotely controlled from South of the Border...
> From:
[email protected]> To:
[email protected]> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:36:46 +0100
> Subject: LF: RE: Re: Opera v qrs evaluation
>
> Dear all,
>
> I did an atempt to compare Opera with WSPR, QRSS3 and DFCW10.
> I did it by generating audiofiles that contain a Opera2, WSPR, QRSS3 and DFCW signal of identical amplitude (but slightly different frequency and add a known amount of (white) noise to get a known SNR.
> I started from -20dB and then down in 1dB steps, till -33dB. For each SNR level I generated 5 audiofiles.
> All was done by a small application I wrote.
>
> Results:
