Elecraft

Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

Classic

List

Threaded

29 messages Options

NK7Z

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

Milverton,
Again, respectfully I submit that you are trying to shift the subject
off of ESSB, to anywhere else now.

Joe is not talking about Contesting, he is talking about ESSB.

--
Thanks and 73's,
For equipment, and software setups and reviews see:
www.nk7z.net
for MixW support see;
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/mixw/info
for Dopplergram information see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dopplergram/info
for MM-SSTV see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MM-SSTV/info

On Sun, 2014-04-27 at 18:39 -0700, Milverton M. Swire via Elecraft
wrote:

> >>>> willful
> use of a bandwidth in excess of 2.8 KHz can *still* be considered a
> violation in conjunction with other conditions - particularly
> interference, splatter, distortion, IMD, etc. <<<<
>
> NOW!!!!!
> You have just Describe 98% of those who proclaim their love of Contesting!
>
> [particularly!
> interference, splatter, distortion, IMD, etc.]
>
> BTW.
> Aggressive use of Compression (PUNCH)
> Overly active ALC.
> And! Last but not the least, chronic twisting of the mic gain knob
> to the right is tantamount of the above mention.
>
> Maybe, we should just include the Contester in this tantivy as well.
>
>
>
> ((((73)))) Milverton. / W9MMS
>
>
> On Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:09 PM, "Joe Subich, W4TV" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> >On the other hand, Title 47 which includes more than Part 97 regularly
> >defines SSB as 2K80J3E (2.8 KHz bandwidth) and specifies a maximum
> >modulating frequency of 2.8 KHz for various FM voice "communications"
> >services.
> >
> >Given that standard, and the fact that RM-10740 was dismissed without
> >modifying the rule that requires the use of minimum bandwidth, without
> >modifying the rules against intentional interference, and without
> >modifying the rule that requires "good engineering practice," willful
> >use of a bandwidth in excess of 2.8 KHz can *still* be considered a
> >violation in conjunction with other conditions - particularly
> >interference, splatter, distortion, IMD, etc.
> >
> >73,
> >
> > ... Joe, W4TV
> >
> >
> >
> >On 4/27/2014 8:42 PM, Milverton M. Swire via Elecraft wrote:
> >>>>>> This issue is not just about "...other hams having fun doing what they
> >> want to do with their K3s", there really are some good engineering
> >> reasons for not using ESSB below 100 MHz. Joe has articulated a few.
> >> Beyond the "...other hams having fun..." argument, is there really any
> >> other reason to do ESSB? <<<<
> >>
> >> David, et al.
> >>
> >> The question of " Legality " and Engineering reasoning has been bantered around
> >> on numerous different occasions.
> >> There are many in their zeal to defend their ideals will make frivolous statements on
> >> what should or should not be the accepted TBW.
> >> Irrespective of what some of us may think, there are no set number on TBW for SSB.
> >>
> >> For those who are about to get their under wears in a wad, here are the FCC view on the
> >> subject a define bandwidth on Phone.
> >>
> >> http://www.nu9n.com/images/FCC-DA-04-3661A1-final.pdf
> >>
> >> There are many of us who often times forget that this is a HOBBY for Amateurs.
> >>
> >> ((((73)))) Milverton.
> >>
> >>
> >______________________________________________________________
> >Elecraft mailing list
> >Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> >Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> >Post: mailto:[hidden email]
> >
> >This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> >Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >Message delivered to [hidden email]
> >
> >
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

NK7Z

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

In reply to this post by Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Joe,
You have answered a question that myself and another ham in my area have
been wondering about... Why are we starting to see the other sideband
in some signals... THANK YOU!

--
Thanks and 73's,
For equipment, and software setups and reviews see:
www.nk7z.net
for MixW support see;
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/mixw/info
for Dopplergram information see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dopplergram/info
for MM-SSTV see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MM-SSTV/info

On Sun, 2014-04-27 at 22:09 -0400, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

> > NOW!!!!!
> > You have just Describe 98% of those who proclaim their love of
> > Contesting!
>
> Hardly - most contesters are focused on keeping their audio "tight"
> for maximum efficiency. Yes, some overdrive an amplifier and
> splatter but heavily compressed (low peak to average) audio is not
> "wide" and does not cause interference. Unlike intentionally wide
> audio with excessive low end that rings and creates a false carrier
> to the point the SSB can be demodulated as AM.
>
> It takes one look at a P3 or other panadapter to tell the difference
> between properly adjusted DX or contest audio and ESSB slop. The DX
> or contest audio will show more high end than low end and be 2.4 - 2.8
> KHz wide. The ESSB slop will have 20 dB or more low end than high end,
> will be 3.5 - 4.0 KHz wide and will sound muddy or 'rumble' with very
> little articulation in spite of the extra bandwidth. The excess low
> frequency audio will push the transmitter IF and PA stages into
> compression much too soon and result audio that is "dense" and full
> to tightly packed IMD products of the low frequency (fundamental).
> If the transmitter has been modified with a wide IF filter, the ESSB
> signal will also include a regenerated opposite sideband down only
> 10 to 15 dB relative to the normal sideband due to the IMD generated
> in the overdriven IF and PA stages.
>
> 73,

NK7Z

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

In reply to this post by w0mu

Hi Mike,

I beg to differ on that, the slow transmissions have a valid reason to
be so slow, they are working statistics to make a contact with the
lowest power possible... Does ESSB take less power? Does it allow for
very weak signals reception... No...

It is there because someone thinks it is cool... Nothing more. It is
not innovative, nor does it have any engineering reason for existing on
HF. All it takes is an equalizer.

Using slow CW is clever approach to a problem, it lets one make a
contact where one would not be possible, ESSB does just the opposite...

Given the same band conditions, the restricted BW signal will outperform
the ESSB signal every time.

It was after all a supporter of ESSB that said it was just fun... Is
that really it? It's just cool?

--
Thanks and 73's,
For equipment, and software setups and reviews see:
www.nk7z.net
for MixW support see;
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/mixw/info
for Dopplergram information see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dopplergram/info
for MM-SSTV see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MM-SSTV/info

On Sun, 2014-04-27 at 22:32 -0600, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:

> For the same reason that people are trying to make qso's on 160 using
> some type of incredibly slow transmission mode that appears to most as
> local qrm. Because you can, doesn't mean you should.
>
> Mike W0MU
>
> On 4/27/2014 10:26 PM, David Cole wrote:
> > Milverton,
> > Respectfully, your reply does not answer the question-- is there really
> > a need for ESSB?
> >
> > Your answer merely introduces a totally different argument into this
> > discussion, (the legal argument), while using my question as a launching
> > point for a subject change. I am not asking about if it is legal, I am
> > asking why do it at all? Is this really to use an ESSB supporters own
> > words, "...other hams having fun..."?
> >
> > The legal issue will sort itself out. If ESSB does not have it's own
> > emission definition, (one accepted by the FCC), and is classed with SSB,
> > then it is not legal. This conclusion on my part is based on Part
> > 97.307(a), again, this assumes that ESSB and SSB have the same emission
> > designation as per the FCC.
> >
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

In reply to this post by NK7Z

If one wants to devolve into international law (treaty), ITU defines
"commercial quality" telephony as 300 - 3000 Hz and defines "Sound
Broadcasting" as "between 4,000 and 10,000 (Hz) depending on the
quality desired". See: http://life.itu.ch/radioclub/rr/ap01.htm.
The USA includes that definition/table in 47CFR §2.201 and §2.202.

Thus references to the "necessary bandwidth" for voice (phone) in
part 97 (47CFR Part 97) should be read as 2K70J3A for SSB (including
"ESSB") and 6K0A3A for AM - including the limitations in §97.307(a)
and §97.307(b).

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 4/28/2014 12:26 AM, David Cole wrote:

> Milverton,
> Respectfully, your reply does not answer the question-- is there really
> a need for ESSB?
>
> Your answer merely introduces a totally different argument into this
> discussion, (the legal argument), while using my question as a launching
> point for a subject change. I am not asking about if it is legal, I am
> asking why do it at all? Is this really to use an ESSB supporters own
> words, "...other hams having fun..."?
>
> The legal issue will sort itself out. If ESSB does not have it's own
> emission definition, (one accepted by the FCC), and is classed with SSB,
> then it is not legal. This conclusion on my part is based on Part
> 97.307(a), again, this assumes that ESSB and SSB have the same emission
> designation as per the FCC.
>

Elecraft mailing list

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

In reply to this post by The Wizard

While I do not endorse ESSB, it seems to me the dogs were let loose almost immediately.

Doesn't this go against list guidelines?

I don't understand why Eric let this go on.

73
Mike R

Check out the QRZ app
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Dennis Mills

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

STOP IT !!

On Apr 27, 2014, at 11:11 PM, mikerodgerske5gbc--- via Elecraft <[hidden email]> wrote:

> While I do not endorse ESSB, it seems to me the dogs were let loose almost immediately.
>
> Doesn't this go against list guidelines?
>
> I don't understand why Eric let this go on.
>
> 73
> Mike R
>
> Check out the QRZ app
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

Administrator

Gentlemen,

This thread is now closed.

I apologize for not stepping in earlier, I was off-line most of the weekend.

In general, please do not argue on the Elecraft list pro/con about various
emission modes like ESSB, CW vs no-code, QRP vs QRO, Contesting etc and their
appropriateness to amateur radio. This list is not a forum for amateur radio
policy. Also, impolite discussion is in direct violation of the list guidelines.

Also, if you are tempted to use ALL CAPS or Exclamation points (!) in a posting,
please do not post. If you feel angry or like you must attack someone, don't. In
general waiting overnight and re-reading your proposed posting goes a long way
towards self filtering. :-) The delete key works wonders..

Regards,

Eric
List Moderator
elecraft.com

On 4/28/2014 12:09 AM, Dennis Mills wrote:

> STOP IT !!
>
> On Apr 27, 2014, at 11:11 PM, mikerodgerske5gbc--- via Elecraft <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> While I do not endorse ESSB, it seems to me the dogs were let loose almost immediately.
>> Doesn't this go against list guidelines?
>> I don't understand why Eric let this go on.
>>
>> 73
>> Mike R
>>

Phil Kane-2

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

In reply to this post by NK7Z

On 4/27/2014 9:26 PM, David Cole wrote:

> The legal issue will sort itself out. If ESSB does not have it's own
> emission definition, (one accepted by the FCC), and is classed with SSB,
> then it is not legal.

Both "conventional" SSB and ESSB have the same emission designator - A3J
- when used for voice (phone). The difference is the occupied
bandwidth. That's where the argument is.

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

Administrator

Hi Phil - This thread has been closed. Please see my earlier posting.

73,

Eric
elecraft.com

On 4/28/2014 1:41 PM, Phil Kane wrote:
> On 4/27/2014 9:26 PM, David Cole wrote:
>
>> The legal issue will sort itself out. If ESSB does not have it's own
>> emission definition, (one accepted by the FCC), and is classed with SSB,
>> then it is not legal.
> Both "conventional" SSB and ESSB have the same emission designator - A3J
> - when used for voice (phone). The difference is the occupied
> bandwidth. That's where the argument is.
>
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]