[Lowfer] 74.5495 QRSS 60 as usual till at least 0600...

[JD]

>>> Nothing phony about SNR being referenced to a particular bandwidth. 
>>> Don't like the bandwidth it's referenced to just adjust with 10 log 
>>> (BW1/BW2).

True.  If you were to do that with WSPR 2, for instance, and cut the 
reference noise bandwidth to match the actual 6 Hz signal bandwidth, WSPR 
loses 26 db of its presumed magic right off the top.  If you narrow it to 
the bandwidth the software needs to track the signal once acquired, there go 
several more decibels.  Which one is the most nearly relevant bandwidth? 
Certainly not the SSB filter; you could as easily use AM bandwidth and claim 
a few more dB.  Reporting an SNR that has no relevance to the software's 
real ability to extract signal is basically marketing hype.

It's like a certain mustard I see every week at the supermarket that 
splashes the words "40% MORE" across the bottle without even an asterisk 
referring you to (non-existent) fine print telling you they mean 40% more 
than their own regular size bottle sitting right next to it, which just 
happens to sell for HALF the price.  Wow, you can get 40% more mustard for 
only twice the money?...such a deal!  When the point of a number is to make 
people think they're getting more of anything than they are, that's when I 
call it phony-baloney.

But I'm not here to start a war between this protocol versus that modulation 
mode, Jay.  Nor am I trying to insult the software or the people who use 
it--merely expressing my aggravation with omnipresent hype, with what I 
hoped was a humorous exaggeration of my own.

If you'll notice my own numbers for Argo, the signal _in the detection 
bandwidth_ was 10 or more dB above noise in nearby non-signal bins to 
achieve that result.  Argo's not magic, either!  But I have managed to get 
detection out of it when it only has a handful of least significant bits to 
work with, as in this case, and far less success with WSPR under similar 
conditions...although WSPR-X has given me more promising results and better 
AGC tolerance than v 2.0 did.  The rule of thumb thus far, however, has 
still been that if I can't see it with reasonable consistency in Argo, it's 
not going to decode in WSPR regardless of inflated SNR numbers.

73
John