Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+RE\:\s+Re\:\s+WSPR\s+\-2\s+SNR\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+RE\:\s+Re\:\s+WSPR\s+\-2\s+SNR\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. RE: LF: RE: Re: WSPR -2 SNR (score: 1): Author: "Clemens Paul" <[email protected]>; Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:06:33 +0100; Hi Roelof, That's strange.I would have expected the "better" SNR with the 540Hz filter. Just for fun try a 100Hz or even 50Hz BW. I've seen "improvements" in indicated SNR up to 15dB with Perseus. Th; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2013-03/msg00054.html (12,229 bytes)
2. LF: RE: Re: WSPR -2 SNR (score: 1): Author: "Clemens Paul" <[email protected]>; Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 22:09:57 +0100; Yes,that was also my own experience and below is Joe*s correspondent comment from a private email: "The calculation of S/N in WSPR assumes that the "baseline" noise spectrum is approximately flat ov; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2013-03/msg00227.html (11,647 bytes)
3. Re: LF: RE: Re: WSPR -2 SNR (score: 1): Author: "Roelof Bakker" <[email protected]>; Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 22:11:58 +0100; Hello Clemens, Thank you for your help. This evening I did a rerun from my PERSEUS recording. This is a bit tricky in regard to timing, however it can be done. Instead of the original bandwidth of 54; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2013-03/msg00675.html (11,971 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]