Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LF: CQ CQ DL4YHF WSQ2

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: LF: CQ CQ DL4YHF WSQ2
From: wolf_dl4yhf <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 00:03:30 +0100
Authentication-results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of [email protected]) smtp.mail=[email protected]
Delivered-to: [email protected]
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
Hi Nicolas,

Am 12.02.2014 23:52, schrieb [email protected]:
quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog
 
dl4yhf 
...-.-
 
cq cq ddl4yhfd4yh e k
 
F4DTL Nicolas

Ok, I was inspired for that sentence when reading the WSQ help pages :-)

btw Murray ZL1BPU has answered my questions regarding notch filter, guess he won't mind relaying his entire message here.
Note the last sentence.

Cheers,
  Wolf.

-----

Wolf,
I can read the rsgb_lf_group reflector, but not post to it (problem getting them to change my login). I am pleased to note your interest in WSQ2. I can hopefully answer your questions about it works.
 
First, there is no notch filter, so if there are interfering carriers, you’ll need to QSY. Not ideal, I know, but with no error correction with a puncturing function there would still be no way to recover from all the errors. The source code is available, so if you want to try, you could add a notch filter.
 
The important reason behind not using FEC is TYPING SPEED. We designed it for 5WPM. WSQ2 is intended to be a QSO mode, like CW. If there are errors, you ask for repeats. In our experience (we also tested WSQ with FEC), for the same text speed, there is little difference between reception quality of 0.5 baud with no FEC, and 0.25 baud with standard NASA convolutional coding FEC. The big difference was that the FEC version was of course much slower. Yes, the FEC version had slightly fewer errors at around –24dB SNR, but it dropped out at –25 just like the non-FEC version.
 
Exactly the same situation applies when you compare DominoEX4 with THOR8. Similar sensitivity, but double the speed. It’s all about the integration time – the slower symbol rate has an impulse noise rejection advantage as well as a sensitivity advantage.
 
You have to realize that WSQ2 is designed as a real-time QSO mode, it is not for beaconing or propagation measurement. Sure, you need slightly more signal than for WSPR, but you can have a real QSO with a real person. FEC, and especially block modes, don’t lend themselves to this level of operating freedom.
 
If anyone on the rsgb reflector has any questions about the mode, please point them in my direction.
 
73,
Murray ZL1BPU



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