Hi Dani,
Dani EA4GPZ wrote:
> Probably we've all heard about the recent 2m QRA64 transatlantic contact:
>
> http://www.arrl.org/news/transatlantic-contact-completed-on-2-meters
>
> What I find a bit strange is the signal reports of -36dB and -37dB SNR
> that they give. Even though QRA64 is quite good, I would expect that
> it's almost impossible to copy QRA64 signals at -36dB.
Evidently you have not seen the messages I posted yesterday to
"wsjtgroup". For completeness they are copied below.
I believe V51PJ and PY1MHZ have been unaware of the way decodes using a
priori information should be used, and consequently they have been
fooled by false decodes displayed by whatever unreleased version of
WSJT-X they were using.
-- 73, Joe, K1JT
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [wsjtgroup] thanks to the software team
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 09:57:29 -0400
From: Joe Taylor [email protected] [wsjtgroup]
<[email protected]>
Reply-To: Joe Taylor <[email protected]>
To: [email protected], WSJT Group <[email protected]>
Dear Pieter V51PJ,
I do not in any way wish to throw cold water on your attempts at
trans-Atlantic communication on 2 meters, but I would like to be sure
you understand what has been accomplished.
Evidently you are using an unreleased version of WSJT-X built from the
development branch of our open source code. The QRA64 mode there is
functional but not yet yet fully complete, and some details of its use
are not yet documented.
Apparently both lines of decoded text shown in the screen shots I've
seen are flagged with the number "8" at the end of line. This indicator
shows how much "a priori" information (if any) has been used as part of
the decoding procedure.
In case it would be useful, here is some (internal) documentation from
our source code describing the end-of-line return codes from the QRA64
decoder:
/*
Return codes:
-16 Failed sanity check
-2 Decoded, but CRC check failed
-1 No decode
0 [? ? ?] AP0 (decoding with no a-priori information)
1 [CQ ? ?] AP27
2 [CQ ? ] AP42
3 [CALL ? ?] AP29
4 [CALL ? ] AP44
5 [CALL CALL ?] AP57
6 [? CALL ?] AP29
7 [? CALL ] AP44
8 [CALL CALL G] AP72
*/
The information here is rather cryptic, intended for our own programming
use. But in short, the "8" flag means that the content of your
transmissions could be determined (and verified with the transmitted
message's cyclic redundancy check) only because its plausible content --
in this case, two callsigns and a grid locator -- were known in advance
to the receiving software. (Of course, this known information is always
available for a scheduled QSO attempt.)
For our weak-signal software development we have been using the
following somewhat "official" definition of a minimum valid QSO, which
appears in the IARU Region 1 VHF Managers Handbook:
#########################################################################
7.1 Minimum Requirement for a valid QSO (Vienna 2007)
A definition for a valid QSO on VHF and on higher bands is:
A valid contact is one where both operators during the contact have
(1) mutually identified each other
(2) received a report, and
(3) received a confirmation of the successful identification and the
reception of the report.
It is emphasized that the responsibility always lies with the operator
for the integrity of the contact.
#########################################################################
It seems to me that your exchanges with PY1MHZ may have satisfied item
#1 in the above list. Now, you need to persist and exchange some
previously *unknown* information, such as a signal report, followed by
an acknowledgment -- and then you will have made a truly record-breaking
QSO!
In passing, I should also caution you and others not to take the dB
signal reports produced by our existing code too seriously. At the low
end of the S/N range for marginal signals, say below -28 dB for QRA64,
the uncertainty of S/N estimates gets very large.
-- 73, Joe, K1JT
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [wsjtgroup] thanks to the software team
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 10:50:11 -0400
From: Joe Taylor [email protected] [wsjtgroup]
<[email protected]>
Reply-To: Joe Taylor <[email protected]>
To: WSJT Group <[email protected]>
Hi Andy and all,
G4JNT wrote:
> I'm puzzled by the quoted -36 and -37dB S/N reports. These seem way
> too low even for QRA-64 mode.
Perhaps this is a good time to remind everyone that estimates of
signal-to-noise ratios for very weak signals *always* have an associated
(if unexpressed) uncertainty. When S/N is quoted in dB, this can have
important consequences.
In a stochastic (noise-like) process, experimentally measured values
will be scattered around the unknown "true" value; some will be pretty
accurate, some too high, and some too low.
Suppose a signal's true S/N (in the detection bandwidth) is equal to
1.0. In a series of measurements of that signal, some of the estimated
("measured") values will be close to 1; some will be higher, maybe as
high as 2 (or even more), and some will be as low as 0 (or even less).
These are *linear* values of S/N: estimated ratios of signal power to
noise power.
When the S/N is expressed in dB -- a logarithmic scale -- you quickly
see the problem. A perfectly plausible estimated S/N=0.1 means that in
dB, S/N_dB = -10 dB. At S/N=0 we get "minus infinity dB".
Some people think it's a big deal when they see a JT65 decode displayed
with an estimated S/N_dB of, say, "-30 dB". This is nothing more than a
statistical fluctuation of noise and an illustration of the nature of
logarithms.
-- 73, Joe, K1JT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
