Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

[Top] [All Lists]

Re: VLF: 8270: now 8269.990Hz

To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: VLF: 8270: now 8269.990Hz
From: "Markus Vester" <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 00:13:18 +0200
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; t=1459635205; bh=hSy2rW3r2JfAXzTAqVtV7Rigdi2byEiOwNri+GNr0TE=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=VCSreCq2BRt4AIxEHThoXiE5XGmamRCzisXTVLT0l0vFRFzaOwKzyEef2Y4Ip0SID 77Z3kPAS1W5cFIraL+BZZuPzjPh99pD+0gNMV3a/TE6204wrWXu48C+cyX5k7caOik lHVit2Epy3cTu6rFr3jYbtYM5Wk8t2pM+o4t7ebo=
Importance: Normal
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
Hi Paul,
that shouldn't be so... According to my favourite hex editor, I get the same result as you for Stefan's samples. But my first samples should be
698.0      1628.0
2096.01  -4322.74
1390.22  -914.946
-1856.24 1887.09
The sign seems to be preserved in your numbers (mostly?). But the magnitude is apparently being limited to one. Is ebnaut-rx software expecting sample values to be smaller than unity?
The reason behind the vastly different magnitudes between Stefan and myself is that we have ticked different formatting options for SpecLab FFT export (float versus scaled-up integer). But this should have no side effects other than a different global scale factor. 
Best 73,

Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2016 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: VLF: 8270: now 8269.990Hz

Markus wrote:

 > I have uploaded the wavs

Thanks I'm looking at those.

Your wav 04010012.wav contains only samples values
of +/- 1,


  sample  ch1  ch2
  0        1    1
  1        1   -1
  3       -1    1
  4       -1    1
  5       -1   -1
  6       -1    1

Stefan's dk7fc_04010002.wav has samples like

  sample  ch1          ch2
  0    5.2787364e-06  -6.6896901e-06
  1   -3.0420255e-05   4.7603622e-05
  2   -2.1549407e-05  -2.1126121e-05
  3    4.9282797e-05  -9.3932264e-05
  4   -2.4563633e-05  -7.9385005e-05
  5    2.7562026e-05   1.3096724e-05
  6   -0.00012802938   0.00018837629

Is that intentional?   I expect it might lose a dB or two.
Paul Nicholson

Attachment: wavs_hex.png
Description: PNG image

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