Steve, Win7 32 bit
I get an Error running or starting c:/WSJT/wsjtx/bin/wsprd Tried build-wsjtx install Tried build-wsjtx package Answered y both times to update. HELP says I am running r5644 Clue Please? 73 Bob w7wo > On Jun 30, 2015, at 3:18 PM, Steven Franke <s.j.fra...@icloud.com> wrote: > > For those testing wspr mode in wsjt-x ver 1.6, I’ve just committed r5644 > which makes decoder #5 from Joe’s table, below, the default decoder in wsjt-x > ver 1.6. It is no longer necessary to separately compile wsprd_exp to get the > benefits of two-pass decoding. > Steve k9an > >> On Jun 29, 2015, at 6:25 PM, Joe Taylor <j...@princeton.edu> wrote: >> >> Hi Steve, >> >>>> The test runs all used the same set of 386 *.wav files, processed with >>>> the following decoders: >>>> >>>> 1. wsprd, from WSPR-X (baseline decoder) >>>> 2. wspr4 >>>> 3. wsprd, as built for WSJT-X v1.6.0 r5636 >>>> 4. wsprd_exp, signal subtraction using symbol-by-symbol coherence >>>> 5. wsprd_exp, subtraction with full coherence and test for local maxima >>>> 6. wsprd_exp, subtraction with full coherence and snr> min_snr >>>> >>>> For each run the following table gives the number of decodes, the >>>> wall-clock running time, the average time per wav file, and the >>>> "improvement factor" for number of decodes and speed. >>>> >>>> Decodes Time1 AvgTime Improvement Decoder >>>> (s) (s) Decodes Speed >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> 1. 1451 2111 5.5 1.00 1.00 baseline >>>> 2. 1693 1599 4.1 1.17 1.32 wspr4 >>>> 3. 2208 335 0.9 1.52 6.30 WSJT-X v1.6.0 r5636 >>>> 4. 2464 413 1.1 1.70 5.11 partial coherence >>>> 5. 2567 431 1.1 1.77 4.90 full coherence >>>> 6. 2839 2136 5.5 1.96 0.99 more candidates >>> >>> Thanks for running these tests. These agree with my results, although >>> I see somewhat more improvement as you go down the list, probably >>> because my test files are all from 20m under crowded band conditions. >> >> Agreed: I think my test files were not quite so homogeneous as yours. >> >>> At some point, we should look at the coherent subtraction lowpass >>> filter. The length (nfilt) and impulse response were chosen without >>> much thought... >> >> Yes, this may need further tweaking. In addition, I suspect we can find >> a criterion better than simply "smspec[j] > min_snr" for choosing >> candidate frequencies, and likely some other speedups, as well. >> >> -- Joe >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Don't Limit Your Business. Reach for the Cloud. >> GigeNET's Cloud Solutions provide you with the tools and support that >> you need to offload your IT needs and focus on growing your business. >> Configured For All Businesses. Start Your Cloud Today. >> https://www.gigenetcloud.com/ >> _______________________________________________ >> wsjt-devel mailing list >> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Don't Limit Your Business. Reach for the Cloud. > GigeNET's Cloud Solutions provide you with the tools and support that > you need to offload your IT needs and focus on growing your business. > Configured For All Businesses. Start Your Cloud Today. > https://www.gigenetcloud.com/ > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Don't Limit Your Business. Reach for the Cloud. GigeNET's Cloud Solutions provide you with the tools and support that you need to offload your IT needs and focus on growing your business. Configured For All Businesses. Start Your Cloud Today. https://www.gigenetcloud.com/ _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel