[Elecraft] Sensitivity - Was K4 Observations

[Tom Azlin W7SUA]

More like a "feel good" detection SNR?

I think fldigi uses a few bins either side of the signal to determine 
the noise in the SNR measurement. When I narrow my K3 IF bandwidth down 
to just the, say Olivia, bandwidth the SNR number climb up to 30 dB high 
as the filter cut the noise in the adjacent "noise" bins. If I use a 
600-700 Hz filter or wider for a 500 Hz wide Olivia then the SNR 
measurements stay the same.

So I have always thought along the lines of your two emails Joe. Plus 
long time ago I discovered how I could add FFTs up and a coherent signal 
would "climb" out of the random noise. So for a signal with considerable 
time per bin measurement you get that gain as well.

So have always thought of the WSJT type negative numbers as bogus.

73, tom w7sua

On 5/19/2019 7:18 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
> On 2019-05-19 9:50 AM, Wes wrote:
>> FT8 reports negative SNRs number but we both know those are bogus. 
> 
> All of the modes that quote negative SNRs are doing so by using SNR
> in a voice (2500 Hz) bandwidth *NOT* SNR in the detector bandwidth
> (bandwidth of the final filter whether than be a narrow IF filter,
> the "ear-brain" filter or a software [computation] filter).
> 
> If one looks at the SNR thresholds of the various Joe Taylor "slow"
> modes, 80% of the "negative" SNR can be attributed entirely to the
> difference between the occupied bandwidth and the [excess] measurement
> bandwidth.  The remainder can be attributed to software processing
> algorithms that take advantage of the fact that noise is random while
> the signal is not - in essence reporting using a "peak noise" level
> while actually decoding against a "minimum noise" level (like copying
> CW through static crashes - one looses a dit/dah during the crash but
> fills that in from the context).
> 
> 73,
> 
>     ... Joe, W4TV
> 
> 
> On 2019-05-19 9:50 AM, Wes wrote:
>> I feel like I'm gonna be slappin' a tar baby by responding.
>>
>> Since we are discussion HF radios, I was assuming HF.  I realize 
>> JT65(-HF) and JT9 have been used on HF, but the QSOs are hardly 
>> random. If your computer clock is off, sorry, no QSO.  FT8 reports 
>> negative SNRs number but we both know those are bogus.
>>
>> Wes  N7WS
>>
>>
>> On 5/19/2019 5:58 AM, Ed W0YK wrote:
>>> JT65, JT9, FT8.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>> Ed W0YK
>>>
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: Wes <wes_n7ws at triconet.org>
>>> Date: 5/19/19 07:49 (GMT-06:00)
>>> To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Sensitivity - Was K4 Observations
>>>
>>> What current modes hear below the noise level?
>>>
>>> Wes  N7WS
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html