Paul
Thanks for the test details and results ... well done!
Jay
----- Original Message -----
Reply-To: Discussion of the Lowfer \(US, European, & UK\) and MedFer bands < [email protected]>
Sent: 2/26/2018 7:57:51 AM
Subject: [Lowfer] WSJT-X 1.9 vs 1.8 WSPR decoding test
Yesterday's release of WSJT-X 1.9.0rc2 came with this note:
"Improved decoding performance for WSPR mode, especially effective
at LF and MF". I wanted to put this to the test so overnight I ran
four instances of WSJT-X:
1.8.0 on both LF and MF using the call sign N1BUG/1
1.9.0rc2 on both LF and MF using the call sign N1BUG
All spots were uploaded to WSPRnet.
Both decoders on LF were fed the same audio stream. The setup is a
simple SDR providing I/Q input to a physical sound card, HDSDR
software output into a virtual audio cable, both versions of WSJT-X
taking input from the output of that virtual cable.
The MF setup was the same except using a different SDR feeding a
different physical sound card.
I used identical settings in all four instances of WSJT-X with the
exception of different input audio source (virtual cable) for LF and MF.
All of this was running in Windows 10.
I watched incoming spots very closely for the first several hours.
There was not much activity on LF at the time but on MF I saw 1.9
decode many WSPR transmissions that 1.8 failed to decode. Some of
these were extreme weak signal down to -32 with barely visible
traces on the waterfall. Others were not with some clearly visible
and decoding up to -23 in 1.9, yet no decode in 1.8 despite being
very clear on the waterfall in that version. I did not see a single
instance where 1.8 decoded something that 1.9 failed to decode.
This morning I took a quick look at statistics:
MF - During a 12 hour period ending 1145z, 1.9 decoded a total of
933 WSPR transmissions while 1.8 decoded only 883.
LF - During a 12 hour period ending 1150z, 1.9 decoded 253 WSPR
transmissions while 1.8 decoded only 183.
In all of this I do not see any obvious spurious decodes from either
version. No strange call signs or stations displaced on the map from
where you would expect them to be.
I was not expecting to see such a large difference. I make no claim
that this result is representative of what others will see. I am
simply reporting the results of an experiment carried out here.
73,
Paul N1BUG
______________________________________________________________
Lowfer mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/lowfer
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[email protected]
Post must be less than 50KB total for message plus attachment!
This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
|
|
