[Lowfer] WSPR comparison at 474.2 kHz

[John Andrews]

L,

But there are still squirrels in OK whose eyes shift back and forth 10 
times a second...

The infinite number of monkeys thing was great fun early on, when 
determining your sound card sampling rate was done by analyzing a WOLF 
.wav file, and diddling the sampling rate until something came out right.

But, with WOLF providing a 15-character stream of the user's choice, you 
could come up with creative messages and nailed-down QSO formats. That's 
a lot neater than the K1JT stuff that is pre-structured.

It's too bad that the EU guys thought so poorly of the mode, due to the 
linear PA issue.

J

On 12/10/2015 1:21 PM, Howell, Laurence J wrote:
> Got to admit I ran WOLF hard on the Decca at 137kHz but the listening density then was low - want too painful...
>
> I miss that WOLF and the infinite number of free monkeys that came with it. I kinda think WSPR 15 is optimum for some  475 paths but varies a heck of a lot.
>
>
>
> Laurence
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lowfer [mailto:lowfer-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of John Andrews
> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 8:52 AM
> To: Discussion of the Lowfer (US, European, & UK) and MedFer bands <lowfer at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [Lowfer] WSPR comparison at 474.2 kHz
>
> Doug,
>
> I had pretty good luck with WSPR-15, too. It seemed more immune to the
> squiggly-line interference that is so bad down there at night. False
> decodes were rare, and it seemed to deliver the 6 dB or so that was
> promised, sometimes more.
>
> Of course, other modes have pretty much hit the trash heap, too. WOLF
> was my favorite, and still gives the most bang for a text-based mode.
> But you have to have the receiving end well-calibrated, and should have
> a linear PA at the sending end. That combination has pretty much killed it.
>
> And going back further, the error-corrected BPSK modes from VE2IQ used
> to work wonders in the Lowfer band. But the style of the program was
> tougher to use than the newer GUI stuff. Although he managed to get away
> from the original hardware, it was more complicated to run than the
> easier QRSS modes that "took over" at the time. Later experiments with
> GPS-locked BPSK offered shorter decoder lock-in times, but not a big
> gain for the complexity of the setup. The "Eb-Naut" stuff they are
> playing with in EU now is another step in that direction, but may never
> reach user-friendly status.
>
> Anyway, having all the tools is great, but there have to be enough
> people to make it worthwhile!
>
> John, W1TAG
>
> On 12/10/2015 9:42 AM, Douglas Williams wrote:
>> That's too bad. I remember a year or two ago I was regularly decoding DK7FC
>> (and I think one or two other European LF stations) with WSPR-15. As far as
>> I can remember, I've only managed to decode him once or twice using WSPR-2.
>> WSPR-15 is clearly superior for LF DX.
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>