Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+RE\:\s+Re\:\s+Opera\s+v\s+qrs\s+evaluation\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+RE\:\s+Re\:\s+Opera\s+v\s+qrs\s+evaluation\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. RE: LF: RE: Re: Opera v qrs evaluation (score: 1): Author: Laurence KL7UK <[email protected]>; Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:57:46 -0900; 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; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2012-01/msg00134.html (11,218 bytes)
2. LF: RE: Re: Opera v qrs evaluation (score: 1): Author: Rik Strobbe <[email protected]>; Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:36:46 +0100; 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 diffe; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2012-01/msg00803.html (12,788 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]