Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[Ken Kopp]

Oh my, I hope not ....

Shades of 14178  ....  terrible amateur
practice, and ... at times ... patently illegal.

73! Ken Kopp - K0PP
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[AC7AC]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

> If you'd like to read one of many reasonably balanced views
> of the use of ESSB, check this web site. I don't know the
> fellow, but from what I've read of his site, I agree with him.
>
> http://www.icycolors.com/nu9n/apologetics_2.html
>
> But then, I tend to agree with most who speak in terms of
> moderation...

That site is full of misinformation and is hardly "moderation."

Many years ago AT&T (Bell Labs) proved rather conclusively that
an audio bandwidth of less than 3 KHz (generally about 2.4 - 2.7
KHz) was all that was necessary for reasonable "communications
quality" or "tool grade" voice.  Most communications services -
including government HF voice circuits and the US amateur rules
for 60 Meters - are based on 2.5 KHz "Channels" (2K4J3E USB with
a slight "guard band").  That makes a very good standard against
which to judge "minimum necessary bandwidth" - particularly on a
crowded band.  There is no communications requirement for a 6 (or
even 5) KHz audio bandwidth - that's equivalent to the old "remote
broadcast lines" that Ma Bell made available only on a limited
basis through much of the history of analog telephony.  

Anyone who makes the "AM requires 6 KHz" argument is comparing
apples and oranges.  6 KHz AM (6K00A3E) represents a highest
modulating frequency of 3 KHz - comparable to 2K70J3E!  Most
amateurs will relax the minimum bandwidth a little and accept
2.7 or 2.8 KHz vs. 2.4 KHz at the 6 dB points.  That represents
an audio response of 200 Hz or 300 Hz to 3 KHz.  However, there
is no intelligent reading of Part 97 that supports (justifies)
the use of 4K00J3E, 5K00J3E or 6K00J3E any more than it will
support 8K00A3E (8 KHz wide AM - 100 Hz  to 4 KHz audio) or
10K00A3E (10 KHz wide AM - 100 Hz to 5 KHz audio).  
 
The ESSB argument is nothing more than a small group of individuals
saying "I will do it because I have the technology to do it."  
That's the same as saying "I'm going to drive 160 MPH on the
interstate because my car can go that fast."  It's a dangerous,
selfish and short sighted attitude.  

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV
 

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[David Pratt-2]

In a recent message, Ron D'Eau Claire <[hidden email]> wrote ...
>One of the important activities we Hams participate in is experimenting with
>various signal formats (or "modes" if you prefer). Fortunately, our licenses
>in most countries give us a lot of latitude about what is legal. Certainly
>the USA is a very lenient country in that regard.

In the UK our licence states.....

"The bandwidth of emissions should be such as to ensure the most
efficient utilisation of the spectrum. In general this requires that
bandwidths be kept to the lowest values which technology and the nature
of the service permits."

To me that means 2.7kHz wide ssb is more efficient that 6kHz ;-)

73
--
David G4DMP
Leeds, England, UK
------


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[David Woolley (E.L)]

Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
>
> Note that there are *NO* FCC rules about the bandwidth of an SSB (or other)
> signal that say a certain bandwidth is "illegal".

I would certainly agree with others that 6kHz SSB would be a
contravention of the UK licence, although it might only be a SHOULD
violation, rather than a MUST one.  It would also violate the voluntary
band plans.

More importantly, it would seem to me a case of playing the marketing
numbers game (bigger is better, in this case more bandwidth is better).
  It does not represent pushing the limits of technology in any way.
It's always been possible, but it has not been done (except possibly for
broadcast and the transmission of broadcast quality signals over
telephone carrier systems) because it is bad engineering for a speech
communications system.  Whilst amateur radio users may think they are in
the forefront by using this, they are far from it.

Incidentally, a not much larger bandwidth is the basis of both analogue
and PCM telephony, and pre-PCM telephone carrier systems used SSB on the
wire.  The nominal maximum frequency for analogue telephony is 3.4kHz.
That allows a respectable guard band when channelised into 4kHz
channels. PCM telephony is based on a sample rate of 8 kHz, which gives
the same channel width of 4kHz, reducing to the typical 3.4kHz maximum
when you apply realistic anti-aliasing filters.

>
> ESSB, properly done as the K3 does it, uses no more spectrum than AM phone,
> which is perfectly within the normal amateur practice on the phone bands.
> (Actually, the last I heard, the K3 ESSB mode occupies *less* than the 6 kHz
> of a normal AM phone signal).

Generally, double sideband full carrier transmissions are permitted
because of grandfathering (i.e. the process by which regulations permit
the continued use of obsolete standards, even though they don't comply
with the current technical requirements).  There is also, probably a
certain element of the self training aspect of amateur radio as well, in
that it permits someone to self construct a very simple transmitter
(although I think the expectation would be that such transmitters would
never be used with more than a few watts of output, these days).

Incidentally, historically amateur DSB full carrier transmissions
haven't had tight bandwidth control, so the 6kHz is more a statement
about where most of the power is in the speech spectrum.  I suspect that
  broadcast transmissions, these days, are tightly filtered, although
that leaves one with the interesting position that the channelisation of
shortwave broadcasts means that the equivalent SSB bandwidth is actually
less than 2.7kHz!

>
> One of the important activities we Hams participate in is experimenting with
> various signal formats (or "modes" if you prefer). Fortunately, our licenses

I really don't see that there is anything to experiment about here.  If
you want to experiment, look for ways of improving speech communication
in the current or lower bandwidths, and specifically in the context of
high noise, interference and frequency selective fading; if the signal
cannot tolerate these, it should be experimented with over wired
connections.  I would use the word "play", instead.


PS Don, I think you meant troll, not phish.  Phishing is attempting to
find finance related access control credentials by pretending to be the
organisation with which you would legitimately use them.

--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[dj7mgq]

> Note that there are *NO* FCC rules about the bandwidth of an SSB (or other)
> signal that say a certain bandwidth is "illegal".

Maybe not - I wouldn't know.

However, here in DL ESSB and classical AM are illegal below 28MHz.

The maximum allowed bandwidth between 1.81Mhz and 28MHz in the HAM bands
is 2.7kHz, and the maximum Bandwidth in the 10m band is 7kHz.
<http://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/Gesetz/AFuV-erste-verordnung-zur-_C3_A4nderung,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi,sprache=de,rwb=true.pdf>
  - pages 2 and 3.

Also the IARU-Region 1 Band Plan does not "allow" more than 2.7 kHz
below 29.2 MHz. <http://www.darc.de/bandplan/index.html>

vy 73 de toby
--
DD5FZ, 4N6FZ (ex dj7mgq, dg5mgq, dd5fz)
K2 #885, K2/100 #3248
K3/100 #??? (< #200)
DOK C12, BCC, DL-QRP-AG
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Neal Campbell K3NC]

Interesting...

What is the definition of ESSB, anything greater than 2.7kHz? My
Orion2 can do up to 3000 I believe, so is this ESSB?

On 8/12/07, Toby Deinhardt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > Note that there are *NO* FCC rules about the bandwidth of an SSB (or
> other)
> > signal that say a certain bandwidth is "illegal".
>
> Maybe not - I wouldn't know.
>
> However, here in DL ESSB and classical AM are illegal below 28MHz.
>
> The maximum allowed bandwidth between 1.81Mhz and 28MHz in the HAM bands
> is 2.7kHz, and the maximum Bandwidth in the 10m band is 7kHz.
> <http://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/Gesetz/AFuV-erste-verordnung-zur-_C3_A4nderung,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi,sprache=de,rwb=true.pdf>
>   - pages 2 and 3.
>
> Also the IARU-Region 1 Band Plan does not "allow" more than 2.7 kHz
> below 29.2 MHz. <http://www.darc.de/bandplan/index.html>
>
> vy 73 de toby
> --
> DD5FZ, 4N6FZ (ex dj7mgq, dg5mgq, dd5fz)
> K2 #885, K2/100 #3248
> K3/100 #??? (< #200)
> DOK C12, BCC, DL-QRP-AG
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
>  http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
>

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Brendan Minish]

ESSB is just dreadful and like in Germany is probably not legal in EI
where our rules seem to define SSB as 2.7 Khz or less .

However is the k3 capable of ECW (enhanced CW)? I would like some nice
wide clicks and a 'phat' rough tone to help me keep some space around me
in a contest and stand out in a pileup.

TNX UR 593 ;-)

73
Brendan EI6IZ

   

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[N2EY]

In a message dated 8/12/07 8:39:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:


> What is the definition of ESSB, anything greater than 2.7kHz? My
> Orion2 can do up to 3000 I believe, so is this ESSB?
>
>

No.

THere's no hard-and-fast defintion of ESSB that I've seen. In practice, it
means SSB 6 to 9 kHz wide or thereabouts.

IMHO, the justifications for ESSB boil down to these:

1) 'ESSB sounds "better" than regular SSB'.

"Better", is of course in the ear of the beholder. The questions are, does
the better sound come from the wider bandwidth or from other things, like less
distortion? And does sounding better justify twice the bandwoth or more?

2) 'DSB AM with carrier typically takes up 6 to 9 kHz of the band. If it's OK
for that kind of AM to take up 6 to 9 kHz, why isn't it OK for a different
kind of AM to do the same?"

The answer is that DSB AM *has to* occupy that much space, by its very
nature. SSB doesn't.

3) 'ESSB users are "experimenting" with new modes".

That's a good thing, but does it justify the bandwidth? Particularly when
decades of research have shown that voice comms need only 3 kHz maximum audio?
Could other modes justify bandwidth-enhanced things like clicks and hum on that
principle?

4) 'There's no explicit rule limiting the bandwidth of an SSB signal.'

That's true - and it's a good thing. FCC has given US hams a lot of leeway in
the regs, and has repeatedly avoided hard-and-fast technical rules on things
like bandwidth out of trust that hams will 'do the right thing'. Abusing that
trust is just begging for more and stricter regulations.

The question I ask is this:

What about FM? I really like FM voice. Sounds really good, the equipment is
simple and there's a lot of it in use by amateurs and others.

Why can't I run FM voice that's 15 or 20 kHz wide on 75 meters? I think it
would sound really, really good. Much better than even AM, and immune to summer
QRN. The transmitter would be very efficient, modulated at low level and
amplified in highly efficient Class E stages that are very simple and don't have to
be amplitude-linear at all. I'd be experimenting with new things.

What's the problem?

73 de Jim, N2EY


**************************************
 Get a sneak peek of the
all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Tom Hammond-2]

Hi Brandon:

I'm pretty sure we've managed to work out all of the T3 through T7 'qualities'
of the K3... right now, it's as clean as any rig I've ever heard.

73,

Tom   N0SS

At 07:47 08/12/2007, Brendan Minish wrote:

>ESSB is just dreadful and like in Germany is probably not legal in EI
>where our rules seem to define SSB as 2.7 Khz or less .
>
>However is the k3 capable of ECW (enhanced CW)? I would like some nice
>wide clicks and a 'phat' rough tone to help me keep some space around me
>in a contest and stand out in a pileup.
>
>TNX UR 593 ;-)
>
>73
>Brendan EI6IZ
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Elecraft mailing list
>Post to: [hidden email]
>You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
>Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
>  http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
>Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Thom LaCosta]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 [hidden email] wrote:

>
> Why can't I run FM voice that's 15 or 20 kHz wide on 75 meters? I think it
> would sound really, really good. Much better than even AM, and immune to summer
> QRN. The transmitter would be very efficient, modulated at low level and
> amplified in highly efficient Class E stages that are very simple and don't have to
> be amplitude-linear at all. I'd be experimenting with new things.

Marvelous idea...logical too...and flies in the face of operating efficiently.
But, that notwithstanding, with limited spectrum space available, even after the
expansion of the phone bands, why are we considering reducing the number of
channels available, by increasing the bandwidth?

Arguments in favor of creating wider than required signals remind me of folks
who buy a car with a huge engine and then insist they be allowed to drive at no
less than 90 mph.

73 thom
Thom,EIEIO
Email, Internet, Electronic Information Officer

www.baltimorehon.com/                    Home of the Baltimore Lexicon
www.tlchost.net/hosting/                 Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Thom LaCosta]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Dale Putnam wrote:

>
> Can you see it now? Since all the bandwidth is used up on 75, and the digital/cw crowd has
> learned to live in a smaller space, and they don't make much noise, or take up
> a lot of room, they can learn to live in less, this month, less next month, and none next year.
> Then we can show em,`there won't be any room for intelligent, creative, or
> progressive conversation, or progress at all.--... ...--

I hadn't thought of it that way....but I think there's hope...someone had posted
that if we screwed up with ESSB, that the FCC and ARRL would step right in and
fix it all.

I'm not sure is most frightening, having someone show up saying:

"I'm from the gubmint, and I'm here to help you."
or
"I'm from the ARRL and I'm here to help you."

I'm still trying to get in through my thick skull how we hams can push for a
dimunation of efficiency that would not only reduce our channels, but cause
problems for hams in other countries where the telecommunications regulators
have the sense to outlaw excessively wide emissions.

Now I'm begining to wonder if there will be a clamor for the K3 to offer 11
meters and above....after all, the rights of the freebanders must be respected.

10-4 Good Buddy...I got the antler pointing yer way and gonna kick in the
leanyer and the Enhanced Side Band.

73-k3hrn
Thom,EIEIO
Email, Internet, Electronic Information Officer

www.baltimorehon.com/                    Home of the Baltimore Lexicon
www.tlchost.net/hosting/                 Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[N2EY]

In a message dated 8/12/07 12:32:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:

> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 [hidden email] wrote:
>
> > Why can't I run FM voice that's 15 or 20 kHz wide on 75 meters? I think it
> > would sound really, really good. Much better than even AM, and

>immune to summer
>
> > QRN. The transmitter would be very efficient, modulated at low level and
> > amplified in highly efficient Class E stages that are very simple and
> don't have to
> > be amplitude-linear at all. I'd be experimenting with new things.
>
> Marvelous idea...logical too...and flies in the face of operating
> efficiently.

How so? The transmitter would be more efficient. If it's OK to use 6 to 9 kHz
for ESSB, why not 15 or 20 kHz for FM?


> But, that notwithstanding, with limited spectrum space available, even
> after the
> expansion of the phone bands, why are we considering reducing the number of
> channels available, by increasing the bandwidth?

I like how 15-20 kHz wide FM sounds. Why can't I use it?
>
> Arguments in favor of creating wider than required signals remind me of
> folks
> who buy a car with a huge engine and then insist they be allowed to drive at
> no
> less than 90 mph.
>

If they don't want us to drive us fast, why do they make such cars? And why
do the speedometers go up so high?

(devil's advocate mode = off)

73 de Jim, N2EY




**************************************
 Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[N2EY]

In a message dated 8/12/07 8:47:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:


> The SSB bandwidth 2007 realities, sound familiar.
> In 1978 - max bandwith over telephonic modems,
> and conditioned AT&T lines was like 6250 baud.
> A "limit" everyone agreed.

But was it a theoretical limit, or a practical limit? Or
was it just a standard so that the industry could move
forward?

>
> Then some clever soul or group, came up with
> quadrature modulation - and rather quietly,
> modems into the hot-copper telephone lines
> of 52kbaud became a reality.
>

Hmm....

I seem to remember that there were a whole bunch of steps
in there...14.4, 28.8, 33, and then two different flavors of
"56K" modems...

I remember my first serious PC dialing up AOL, and
geting different connection speeds depending on the
quality of the lines. My old house on RadioTelegraph Hill
in Upper Darby had an old paper/lead cable, and the
connect speed depended on the weather. When they
finally replaced the cable, about 1998, it was much better.

> Similiarly, perhaps HF comms SSB, needs to
> rethink its SSB modulation approach, to allow wider
> more naturally sounding voice comms, and still
> not take up unnecessary bandwidth, beyone which
> supposedly 2.7khz now consumes.

Well, there's the NBVM idea of thirty years ago. Never really
caught on, though.

 (when do we
>
> start talking about amplifiers?)
>

I suspect that a lot of the complaints about "SSB sounds bad" are
really due to hearing distortion products in the audio, not limited
bandwidth.

> This topic, started as an attempt to learn
> technically what ESSB was all about, in
> its application to Amateur Radio.  Never
> learned anything, except everyone is
> against it.

Did you go to the websites mentioned here and read
what they had to say?

Here's a synopsis:

Some folks don't like how typical amateur SSB sounds.

They think the typical 2.1 to 2.7 kHz amateur SSB voice
signal sounds bad.

They think you need more audio bandwidth for a good sounding SSB voice
signal.

So they've modified their rigs to transmit and receive SSB voice at much
greater bandwidths. 6 kHz and wider are commonly used.

That means their signals take up much more of the band than a typical amateur
SSB signal. Two, three, four or more times what typical ham SSB signals use.

Other hams don't like them using so much of the band for one SSB voice
signal.
These other hams say it's good amateur practice not to use more of the band
than
needed for the mode in use.
>
> PLEASE close this topic, and wait out our
> K3 purchase.  I have no interest in bandwidth
> debates or reasons, rather just what they
> have been working on in SSB techniques.

Other folks *do* have an interest.

 I'm
>
> sure the FCC, and ARRL will reign us in, if
> we stray.
>

The ARRL can only advise what is and is not good practice.

FCC has essentially said they don't really see the point of ESSB.

The big threat to all of us is that we could wind up with more-restrictive
regulations that we don't like, because of the actions of a few.

73 de Jim, N2EY




**************************************
 Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Craig Rairdin]

As a CW op with no dog in this race, I wonder what makes splashing a 2.1 KHz
to 2.7 KHz wide voice signal across the band morally right but 6 KHz or more
morally wrong. Are those who are opposed to 6 KHz-wide SSB doing everything
they can to narrow their bandwidth down to as few hz as possible? That is,
is anyone working on NSSB (narrow SSB) out of a sense of moral outrage over
everyone wasting all that bandwidth at 2.x KHz? If not, then isn't the whole
argument just a spitting contest with no technical or moral merit?

(Sorry, I argue religion for a living and it's often the case that the
opposition is practicing the very thing they're arguing against, just in a
different direction or order of magnitude. I can't help but wonder if the
same logic doesn't apply here.)

Craig
NZ0R

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Thom LaCosta]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Craig Rairdin wrote:

> (Sorry, I argue religion for a living)

Although it's off topic, I wonder how many angels can operate QRP on the head of
a pin?

73 k3hrn
Thom,EIEIO
Email, Internet, Electronic Information Officer


www.baltimorehon.com/                    Home of the Baltimore Lexicon
www.tlchost.net/hosting/                 Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Thom LaCosta]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 [hidden email] wrote:

>> Marvelous idea...logical too...and flies in the face of operating
>> efficiently.
>
> How so? The transmitter would be more efficient. If it's OK to use 6 to 9 kHz
> for ESSB, why not 15 or 20 kHz for FM?

Ah good point...and once 20 kHz is established, we can go for subcarriers to
handle various types of data....
>
>
>> But, that notwithstanding, with limited spectrum space available, even
>> after the
>> expansion of the phone bands, why are we considering reducing the number of
>> channels available, by increasing the bandwidth?
>
> I like how 15-20 kHz wide FM sounds. Why can't I use it?

Well, I feel good when I releive abdominal and/or bladder pressure.  Why can't I
do it anytime I want in public?

>
> If they don't want us to drive us fast, why do they make such cars? And why
> do the speedometers go up so high?

'Cause consumers can be dumb as a box of rocks?  Maybe it's a male thing
(remember the fins on cars, and the protuding front grilles?). Of course there
is the axiom "Mo' is bettah".

>
> (devil's advocate mode = off)

Wow, another religious statment...

73 k3hrn
Thom,EIEIO
Email, Internet, Electronic Information Officer

www.baltimorehon.com/                    Home of the Baltimore Lexicon
www.tlchost.net/hosting/                 Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Brett gazdzinski-2]

 I don't understand why anyone would get upset or even care
about essb (or AM), if its done on a band that is not packed
with signals.
If there is loads of space, what is wrong with making the audio
sound at least as good as a cheap cell phone?

On the AM side, on the east coast of the US, the AM guys
stick in a very small window and put a lot of operators
on one frequency, yes they may take up a lot of bandwidth,
but there may be 8 to 10 guys on frequency and many more
listening.
Some SWL people find AM interesting, as ssb was not
much of an option on many receivers.
That gets people interested in ham radio, that is what
got ME interested in ham radio, many years ago with a poor receiver.

I have designed and built my entire AM station, with 3
separate transmitters and 2 receivers.
Besides the K2, I have no commercial gear except
a Collins 32V3 in the shack.

How many design and build there own high power
multi-band SSB rigs?
My guess would be not that many.
Many AM operators restore old gear or homebrew
tube or class E stuff, and LEARN electronics, even
if its out of date.
I think people should be free to learn things and not just
operate telephone sounding rigs they mail order.

Another thing that interests me is that I listen at night
and there are a bunch of the usual suspects talking
about nothing for the most part (80 meters).
Its so important to fit a few more appliance operators
on the band to talk with friends about their pickup truck
that you have to rain on others parade?

That's hardly vital communications.

I don't understand why people cant play with their radio
stuff without others getting all wound up about it.
Live and let live...

Oh, ever listen on FM mode on a busy band?
Tons of noise and garbage, I don't think you can use
FM unless you have a very low QRM level.


Brett
N2DTS

>
> The question I ask is this:
>
> What about FM? I really like FM voice. Sounds really good,
> the equipment is
> simple and there's a lot of it in use by amateurs and others.
>
> Why can't I run FM voice that's 15 or 20 kHz wide on 75
> meters? I think it
> would sound really, really good. Much better than even AM,
> and immune to summer
> QRN. The transmitter would be very efficient, modulated at
> low level and
> amplified in highly efficient Class E stages that are very
> simple and don't have to
> be amplitude-linear at all. I'd be experimenting with new things.
>
> What's the problem?
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>
>
> **************************************
>  Get a sneak peek of the
> all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
>  http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
>

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Julian, G4ILO]

On 8/13/07, Brett gazdzinski <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Another thing that interests me is that I listen at night
> and there are a bunch of the usual suspects talking
> about nothing for the most part (80 meters).
> Its so important to fit a few more appliance operators
> on the band to talk with friends about their pickup truck
> that you have to rain on others parade?
>
> That's hardly vital communications.
>

Neither are contest exchanges, getting a "59" from a DX station to add
another prefix to the list, or digimoders exchanging their Windows OS
version and the model number of their RigBlaster. Let's not go there.

I thought the argument was about using spectrum space efficiently.
There are bands where it would be perfectly OK, license conditions
aside, to use ESSB - anywhere above 28MHz springs to mind - but 80
metres isn't it. It doesn't matter what people want to talk about,
anyone using more bandwidth than they need just to have nicer-sounding
audio which is not essential to the actual conveying of information is
just being plain selfish, on a band where clear frequencies are
already hard to find.

--
Julian, G4ILO K2 s/n: 392  K3 s/n: ???
G4ILO's Shack: www.g4ilo.com
Ham-Directory: www.ham-directory.com
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[N2EY]

In a message dated 8/12/07 9:52:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:


> I don't understand why anyone would get upset or even care
> about essb (or AM), if its done on a band that is not packed
> with signals.
>

The problem is, it's not always done on a band with lots of room.

73 de Jim, N2EY


**************************************
 Get a sneak peek of the
all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com