tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9071048343455395511.post5968378500005930233..comments2024-03-24T22:03:31.205+00:00Comments on Roger G3XBM's (Mainly) Amateur Radio Blog: 6m super DXRoger G3XBMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673890140751539870noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9071048343455395511.post-77183990742632821862014-04-22T16:07:07.056+01:002014-04-22T16:07:07.056+01:00Tony, I agree about PSK vs RTTY. PSK performs a li...Tony, I agree about PSK vs RTTY. PSK performs a little better I think, but this is often undone by the fact that PSK operators usually leave their passband wide open so they can simultaneously decode multiple QSOs. I don't know how we got on to PSK though - you started off claiming the human ear was better than WSPR - this I'm afraid doesn't stand up to any mathematical scrutiny. At the end of the day however, human or computer, it boils down to the information-rate vs. SNR trade-off. I bow to Mr Shannon & Mr Hartley !David (G0LRD)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11377879585873483008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9071048343455395511.post-35857129519211817602014-04-22T15:28:02.356+01:002014-04-22T15:28:02.356+01:00Hi Roger and David. Yes i agree with wspr. with th...Hi Roger and David. Yes i agree with wspr. with the long time domain for reception.<br />But i did some tests wid psk and to put it simply it didnt live up to the way it was touted as a weak signal mode, often decoding was starting to become 'bitty' yet i could still plainly hear the psk audio suggesting cw would cut it as well.<br />I'm a wspr and cw fan btw.<br />Tony Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9071048343455395511.post-45256484063081201192014-04-22T14:38:16.054+01:002014-04-22T14:38:16.054+01:00WSPR signals at -28db SNR in a 2.5kHz bandwidth ar...WSPR signals at -28db SNR in a 2.5kHz bandwidth are <i>completely</i> inaudible, no matter how good your ears are. I know some don't like it, but digital signal processing thoroughly beats the brain for weak signal working.<br />David G0LRDDavid (G0LRD)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11377879585873483008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9071048343455395511.post-79837128006560523082014-04-22T14:12:15.217+01:002014-04-22T14:12:15.217+01:00Tony, I think you will find WSPR is better. Noneth...Tony, I think you will find WSPR is better. Nonetheless, CW in narrow bandwidths is pretty good.<br /> Roger G3XBMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13673890140751539870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9071048343455395511.post-87832524349783018552014-04-22T14:05:44.682+01:002014-04-22T14:05:44.682+01:00I still think 'good ears' and c.w.
is bett...I still think 'good ears' and c.w.<br />is better than wspr at weak sig stuff.<br />They used to say when psk came in that it could resolve sigs a human ear simply couldnt pick up under the noise. Actually that was hogwash.<br />TontAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com