Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+WSPR\s+2\.0\s+samplerate\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+WSPR\s+2\.0\s+samplerate\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. Re: LF: WSPR 2.0 samplerate (score: 1): Author: Alberto di Bene <[email protected]>; Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 01:01:06 +0100; Markus Vester wrote: Dear LF, I have recently installed WSPR 2.0 on one older XP machine and found that decodes were erratic, and the frequency readout was about 10 Hz high. The reason seems to be th; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2009-12/msg00242.html (9,666 bytes)
2. Re: LF: WSPR 2.0 samplerate (score: 1): Author: Andy Talbot <[email protected]>; Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:22:25 +0000; Windows XP automatically resamples audio at rates that the saoundcard can't 'inherently' support, rather than report an error. Most moderncards have an underlying clock based on 48kHz or 96kHz now, s; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2009-12/msg00325.html (11,468 bytes)
3. LF: WSPR 2.0 samplerate (score: 1): Author: "Markus Vester" <[email protected]>; Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:45:50 +0100; Dear LF, I have recently installed WSPR 2.0 on one older XP machine and found that decodes were erratic, and the frequency readout was about 10 Hz high. The reason seems to be that the input samplera; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2009-12/msg00602.html (9,010 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]