Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RE: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR?

To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: RE: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR?
From: "mal hamilton" <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:36:43 -0000
References: <[email protected]>,<[email protected]> <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB22D26@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be>,<[email protected]> <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB22E5E@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be> <[email protected]>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
In the real world of radio there is always QRM, QSB and QRN so let us have a
meaningful test/result
g3kev

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sabine Cremer" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 1:25 PM
Subject: LF: RE: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR?


> Hi Rik,
>
> > as mentioned in the report the test were done off-air, by adding
> > equal amounts of pure white noise to WSPR / Opera signals of
> > identical
> > amplitude.
> > So no QRM/QRN or QSB involved. Maybe I will do these tests over with
> > QRN and/or QSB added (if there is some interest and if time permits).
>
> I would be very interested in the results! Don't get me wrong, I don't
> want to know what the *best software* is, I would like to learn what are
> the differences using the various algorithms and WHY this is so! It is
> obviously, that you are the right person to give these answers. ;-)
>
> 73
> Sabine, DL1DBC
>
>
>



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>