Try the tests using the Path-sim propagation software , that's a
good universal test instrument, free to download
G..
http://www.moetronix.com/ae4jy/files/pathsimtech100.pdf
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Rik Strobbe" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:09 PM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: LF: RE: slow WSPR?
Hello Stefan, all,
first of all: I am certainly not anti-Opera. I have used the mode on
500kHz and for sure it is a useful mode.
But out of curiosity I have done the noise test as described before and I
am pretty sure the results are correct: in absense of QRN/QSB WSPR will
outperform Opera2 by 7dB in average.
It would be interesting if the man behind this mode would open his books
and give us an insight in the demodulation/decoding system.
About Opera32: you had indeed very good result at +5000km. But keep in
mind that, having 32 minutes to transmit your call, this should be
competitive to QRSS30 or DFCW90.
73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T
________________________________________
Van: [email protected]
[[email protected]] namens Stefan Schäfer
[[email protected]]
Verzonden: woensdag 12 september 2012 14:45
To: [email protected]
Onderwerp: LF: slow WSPR?
Hi Rik,
Am 12.09.2012 14:05, schrieb Rik Strobbe:
Hello Sabine,
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).
Yes, there is some interest!
It would be possible to run an audio file in SpecLab, presenting typical
LF-evening noise, maybe plus some DCF/HGA sidebands and carrier! I think
it is possible that there will be a difference, resulting in pro-Opera.
At least yesterday it seemed to me that OP32 cannot be as bad as often
mentioned.
73, Stefan/DK7FC
|
