[Lowfer] WE2XGR/2 frequency & sampling rate cal signal test

Sun Mar 4 11:51:29 EST 2012

David, Gary et all

We should probably resist temptation and not over analyze the data ... but lets do so anyway ;~) . 
Remember the task at hand is to calibrate a sound card to maybe the nearest mHz if we're lucky. 
Since Dex provided the most frequency measurements let's use that. Looking down the list one sees a 
large number of 0.000 measurements, a few +/- 0.001 and +/- 0.002, one each 0.004 and 0.010. If this 
were my sound card I'd conclude it is pretty well calibrated (especially using an over the air 
signal) and probably wouldn't make an adjustment. While the 0.004 and the 0.010 measurements are 
curious, and it would be nice to know why they exist, should they really be factored into an 
adjustment ... especially if they are likely a computer generated or propagation anomoly? Seems if 
you factored them into an adjustment one would have less 0.000 direct hits.

Jay W1VD  WD2XNS  WE2XGR/2 (not a mathematician or statistician)

2012-03-03 23:59:55 >WOLF10  -r 8000.435 -f 800 -m 96 -w 0
t:  96 f: 0.000 a:-0.2 dp: 72.6
t: 192 f:-0.001 a:-0.3 dp: 65.0
t: 288 f: 0.000 a:-1.3 dp: 62.1
t: 384 f: 0.000 a:-1.6 dp: 57.4
t: 480 f: 0.000 a:-1.8 dp: 56.0
t: 576 f: 0.000 a:-2.3 dp: 52.5
t: 672 f: 0.000 a: 3.1 dp: 51.4
t: 768 f: 0.000 a: 2.2 dp: 70.4
t: 864 f:-0.001 a: 1.8 dp: 65.9
t: 960 f: 0.000 a:-0.4 dp: 42.5
t:1056 f: 0.010 a: 1.3 dp: 49.3
t:1152 f: 0.001 a:-0.5 dp: 62.4
t:1248 f: 0.000 a:-0.5 dp: 68.6
t:1344 f: 0.000 a:-0.7 dp: 67.9
t:1440 f: 0.000 a:-1.0 dp: 59.8
t:1536 f: 0.001 a: 2.7 dp: 46.0
t:1632 f: 0.001 a: 3.1 dp: 49.0
t:1728 f: 0.001 a:-3.1 dp: 55.1
t:1824 f: 0.002 a: 1.5 dp: 53.1
t:1920 f: 0.000 a: 1.9 dp: 65.7
t:2016 f: 0.001 a: 1.4 dp: 53.5
t:2112 f: 0.000 a: 1.6 dp: 49.8
t:2208 f: 0.000 a: 1.1 dp: 60.4
t:2304 f: 0.000 a: 0.6 dp: 54.0
t:2400 f: 0.000 a: 0.0 dp: 57.1
t:2496 f: 0.000 a:-0.8 dp: 66.4
t:2592 f: 0.001 a:-1.9 dp: 67.4
t:2688 f:-0.001 a:-1.7 dp: 64.9
t:2784 f: 0.000 a:-2.5 dp: 68.0
t:2880 f:-0.001 a:-2.8 dp: 67.3
t:2976 f: 0.000 a: 2.1 dp: 66.5
t:3072 f: 0.000 a: 1.9 dp: 55.9
t:3168 f:-0.002 a: 1.1 dp: 63.8
t:3264 f: 0.001 a: 0.3 dp: 68.6
t:3360 f:-0.001 a: 0.8 dp: 69.3
t:3456 f: 0.000 a:-0.4 dp: 64.3
t:3552 f: 0.000 a:-0.7 dp: 69.6
t:3648 f: 0.000 a:-1.0 dp: 66.1
t:3744 f: 0.000 a:-1.7 dp: 67.5
t:3840 f: 0.000 a:-2.8 dp: 67.3
t:3936 f: 0.000 a:-3.0 dp: 59.7
t:4032 f:-0.001 a: 2.8 dp: 62.3
t:4128 f: 0.000 a: 2.7 dp: 54.2
t:4224 f:-0.001 a: 1.4 dp: 69.5
t:4320 f: 0.000 a: 0.8 dp: 70.5
t:4416 f: 0.000 a: 0.2 dp: 59.7
t:4512 f: 0.000 a:-0.9 dp: 66.8
t:4608 f: 0.001 a:-1.7 dp: 61.7
t:4704 f: 0.000 a:-1.5 dp: 71.9
t:4800 f: 0.000 a:-2.2 dp: 74.8
t:4896 f: 0.000 a:-2.3 dp: 70.8
t:4992 f:-0.001 a:-2.6 dp: 71.9
t:5088 f: 0.000 a: 2.4 dp: 75.9
t:5184 f: 0.000 a: 2.2 dp: 68.9
t:5280 f: 0.000 a: 1.9 dp: 65.8
t:5376 f:-0.001 a: 1.3 dp: 67.1
t:5472 f:-0.001 a: 0.6 dp: 65.5
t:5568 f: 0.000 a:-0.5 dp: 67.6
t:5664 f: 0.000 a:-0.7 dp: 58.2
t:5760 f:-0.001 a:-1.8 dp: 58.7
t:5856 f: 0.000 a:-2.6 dp: 66.5
t:5952 f: 0.000 a:-2.7 dp: 61.9
t:6048 f:-0.002 a:-2.9 dp: 61.3
t:6144 f: 0.001 a: 1.0 dp: 65.1
t:6240 f:-0.001 a: 1.4 dp: 66.6
t:6336 f: 0.004 a:-0.7 dp: 69.5
t:6432 f: 0.000 a: 0.5 dp: 76.8
t:6528 f: 0.000 a:-0.2 dp: 76.7
t:6624 f: 0.001 a:-1.0 dp: 78.2
t:6720 f:-0.001 a:-0.9 dp: 79.4
t:6816 f: 0.000 a:-1.7 dp: 79.2
t:6912 f:-0.001 a:-2.2 dp: 79.9
t:7008 f: 0.000 a: 2.9 dp: 81.4
t:7104 f: 0.000 a: 2.4 dp: 81.7
t:7200 f: 0.000 a: 1.9 dp: 81.2
t:7296 f: 0.000 a: 1.3 dp: 71.5

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David L. Wilson" <dwilson314 at verizon.net>
To: <k3siw at sbcglobal.net>; "'Discussion of the Lowfer (US, European, &amp; UK) and MedFer bands'" 
<lowfer at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Lowfer] WE2XGR/2 frequency & sampling rate cal signal test

>> Jay et al, regarding possible outliers in the data I'd remind all that
> median
>> values are superior to average values due to the resistant nature of the
>> former. If the number of samples is long, determining the median can be
>> tedious but spreadsheets like Excel and OpenOffice can relieve that
> burden.
>
> True- unless one want to tackle procedures in Outliers in Statistical Data
> (Wiley Series in Probability & Statistics)
> Vic Barnett , Vic Barnett which costs $228 for the book (gad, I cannot
> believe I have that book in my collection).
>
> One should be very cautious about the temptation to hand pick and delete
> outliers.
>
> And a reminder that all one needs to do is sort the numbers by any method
> and grab the middle one--in UNIX/Linux the "sort" command will do.
> --
> David L. Wilson (Ph.D., Mathematics  :-)  (really)   )    AC4IU
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Lowfer mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/lowfer
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Lowfer at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html 