Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

[Top] [All Lists]

LF: False Decode or Real? - Opera vs opds

To: [email protected]
Subject: LF: False Decode or Real? - Opera vs opds
From: Markus Vester <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 14:23:31 -0400
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20140625; t=1432405412; bh=YFY0/CpgfJPQqM135f/Wq72D3yy3+0gO9XW4jNMdhJw=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Xj3MBxi0/CM6t0zH1cn2W9TXOAwEfT0L57f2RNThbFGPCrFOSlc0Vjr+Hp4pT+Ew4 JbzdN7O5zVgksiTGTzX7CrEG50covmNAx/Q4nXpoEYMjon0vyjtz4MwTt0IVGSlq2g p6/rhFRPgL/FEaocUkXCkODPqSernKqI30Dx+FWs=
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
Hi Graham,

OPDS makes use of Wolfs some what excellent spectrum software as

Spectrum Lab is used as the frontend for opds, the only signal processing done there is a straight high-resolution FFT before exporting the data. Opds then searches for spectral peaks, and transforms a 1024 bin channel around each peak back to time domain (0.5 Hz wide, 4x oversampled). For coherent signals, the central carrier is extracted (including possible drift and fading), and synchroneous demodulation is performed. Then the resulting real waveform is Fourier transformed again for a CPU-efficient crosscorrelation to each of the callsign templates.
both systems reliably produce false detections when subjected
to  noise ..

Opds-32 has been running on LF continuously, typically analyzing about 20 QRM peaks every 10 minutes in a 115 Hz wide band. The searchlist has currently around 50 entries. With a correlation threshold of 15 dB, 28 false detections have occured in 20 weeks since year 2015:
In a pdf file distributed with Opera 1.5.7 software, the author EA5HVK mentions that he tested opds and got 11 false detections in only 4 hours - an observation which is obviously not corroberated by my statistics.
hence  ultra stable  TX and  RX can give  advantage
By using synchroneous demodulation rather than power detection, opds
can detect coherent and stable signals that about 4 dB weaker. Attached
are two plots, showing a side-by-side comparison of detection
probability and SNR output from the Opera 1.5.6 decoder and the
opds2h5c detector.
SpecLab's digimode terminal was used to generated coherent and
perfectly timed Opera signals, and white noise from the test signal
generator was added with variable power density (dB/Hz). The very same
output was analyzed wihin SpecLab to feed opds, and played to the Opera
software usingh VAC. To speed up the experiments, all testing was done
at Op-05 speed (30 seconds), and SNR values were then scaled down by 24
dB to Opera-32. During the test, no false detections were observed in
the output from either program.
In the attached splot uccessrate.png, the solid lines with squares show
detection probability (0 to 100%) against average SNR in 2.5 kHz. The
classic Opera decoder (red) achieved 50 % detections at -40 dB. Opds
correlation (blue) goes down to -49 dB, showing a 4 dB advantage for
these ideal signals. The blue crosses indicate correlation dB output
from opds - note that only hits above the standard 15 dB threshold
(dashed line) were counted as successful detections.
SNR_output.png shows indicated SNR values versus actual SNR from both
programs. Opera 1.5.6 seemed to consistently read 1 dB high, whereas
opds reads approximately 1 or 2 dB low, with a larger scatter. Part of
this negative offset is because I had originally assumed the "dBOp"
scale to be referenced 4 dB (instead of 3 dB) below PEP.
I have not yet tested the dynamic deep search in Opera 1.5.7, but the
claimed -45 dB threshold (ie. 5 dB better than the decoder) seems quite
plausible. I believe opds is also around 4 dB less sensitive for
non-coherent signals, which would then put both programs in same
Now mines a  pint  or  are we onto  shorts  now ?
Please explain...

All the best,
Markus (DF6NM)

-----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung-----
Von: Graham <[email protected]>
An: rsgb_lf_group <[email protected]>
Verschickt: Sa, 23 Mai 2015 4:48 pm
Betreff: LF: MF 630m: False Decode or Real?

intelligent life in other Galaxy's ? Like the Bar ? 11:14 . Suns not
over the  yard yet .. Tad early  Eddie ?

Armature radio V  Armature  hour , take 2

Opera MF and LF is a BOGOFF mode , Buy one and get one free , just that its free to uses and the first is a data mode the second mode
is  a correlation  system , dynamically  engaged ..  page 70  seems  to
miss  this  rather  important  fact along with  the  design  solutions
embodied  therein , I'm waiting  for  page 71 ..

The  test of a good design  is that no one  notices , it just works .

In that 24 hour window , Opera LF produced no false data detections
or  false  dynamic  detections , where as  the  wspr  system regularly
fills the LF map , a simple test of design , preventing false correlation detections is more difficult than false data . Opera LF is -40 dB
and  -45 dB  ... that  well  cool as  J C would (of) said

Now the  tacky bit

As Im sure  Markus  will  tell,  OPDS  and   Dynamic   share the  same
design criteria
To drag low signals out of noise , by pattern matching , OPDS makes use of Wolfs some what excellent spectrum software as DSP , whilst Mr.
Ros  uses his  own  designs .  both  systems  reliably  produce   false
detections when subjected to noise .. not all the time , just depends
on the  detection monkeys sense of humour on the  day.

The  design  solutions'  branch ,   OPDS  makes  accurate  frequency
measurement and  Bandwidth , along  with allowing  parameters to  be
adjusted by  the  user ,as  well  as  maintaining  the  look up  table
hence ultra stable TX and RX can give advantage .. And as pointed out , presents the user with a set of parameters, which may be used as

Opera Dynamic retains the  Plug and  Play  house  style , yes these are
criteria , but are evaluated by the system , load it and it dose the rest , Opera data runs as normal , Opera dynamic is engaged should the decoder fail , the sever handles the validation and maintains the

Both systems OPDS and DYNAMIC produce false real hits , Dynamic take things one step on, where wspr uses the internet as part of the DSP sync . Opera Dynamic uses the internet to pool ' recovered time' data
and  validate the  spots by  identity and  coincidence of  time ..

Now mines a  pint  or  are we onto  shorts  now ?



Attachment: Success_rate.png
Description: PNG image

Attachment: SNR_output.png
Description: PNG image

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