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

[jrusgrove at comcast.net]

>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.

So far you're the only one I've heard that thinks this way. I sincerely doubt Joe Taylor would 
attempt to 'phony-balony' anyone ... if you're unfamiliar with his work you might try 'google-ing' 
Joe Taylor Princeton university.

The only way anyone could be fooled is due to their lack of understanding the concept of signal, 
noise and bandwidth ... and how they are related to each other. As long as the reference bandwidth 
is clearly stated and used consistently it doesn't really matter what that bandwidth is - one is 
free to adjust it to their needs. Other programs including OPERA also reference performance to an 
SSB bandwidth ... allowing for direct comparison.

Joe Taylor has developed an entire suite of software, including some high speed modes for meteor 
scatter, using much larger bandwidths ... which would require a suitably wide bandwidth reference.

Going back to my example of dBm. In weak signal work 0.1 uV is a big signal ... yet when stated 
as -127 dBm it sound so tiny. I suppose I could complain about the reference to "m" making it sound 
so tiny or, as I did many years ago, accept the reference and align my thinking/measurements to the 
dBm scale.

Jay



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "JD" <listread at lwca.org>
To: "Discussion of the Lowfer (US, European, &amp;UK) and MedFer bands" <lowfer at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Lowfer] 74.5495 QRSS 60 as usual till at least 0600...


>>>> 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
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
> 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