A couple of days ago, Markus posted Eb/N0 numbers for WSPR and OPERA, for comparison to the BPSK VLF tests (see below). Some may be interested in a table with Eb/N0 values for some more amateur modes
Thanks for this Pieter! There are a couple more modes that have been used on LF, and of which I'd be interested to see quantitative SNR threshold data: - Wolf PSK-10 with variable long integration fr
I second that. Very informative and I haven't seen this information collated anywhere else. Definitely one to save. CW by ear scores better than I would have guessed. Being a Morse code enthusiast I'
Not in any, really. I'm not aware of any (published) experiments having been done to establish decoding thresholds for it, which I could use to put it in the table. Compared to regular CW transmitted
Indeed, I was surprised to see the number for the three CW cases match so nicely. However, precisely in the CW case, the results should be taken with grains of salt worth several dB. The aural CW res
Hi Pieter, Dave G3YXM and I did some quick and dirty estimations of QRSS about 10 years ago on 136kHz I cant remember whether we did DFCW where the main advantage is that it is faster, but the decode
Andy, G4JNT, had a piece in CREGJ in 2012 about assessing SNR for voice, CW and single tones. See http://bcra.org.uk/pub/cregj/index.html?j=78. John F5LVF [email protected] Researching history
Found it, at http://www.wireless.org.uk/signoise.htm . No DFCW there though. The QRSS line in my table is based on ON7YD's tests, http://on7yd.strobbe.eu/QRSS/ I'd be interested, but can't find somet
I have to agree with you that it can be appropriate sometimes. When measuring the performance of different convolution polynomial sets, I counted as payload all the bits going into the convolver beca
Hi Peter I will email John to see if he remembers it. Yes DFCW is more like cable telegraph code the elements are the same length and there is no need for inter character spaces. I dont beleve any of
