Elecraft

Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

Classic

List

Threaded

38 messages Options

The Wizard

Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

Joe W4TV

Joe maybe you can tell me where I am going wrong then. I use the 6K ESSB filter and have the K3 set up for 4K transmission. When I, and other look at my signal I am in fact transmitting out to 4K when measured on a spectrum analyzers. But when I look at signals myself on my receiver band pass display on the SA, all I can see is signals out to about 3.5 or a little better. I have the center frequency set at *155. I was told that is what it is supposed to be set at. If I move the center frequency up to 200Hz yes I can receive up to 4K but the bottom end amplitude is way down and when I try to play that audio back via the DVR everyone says they have lost their bottom end. What am I doing wrong? Are there other filters I should be using. I or none of the other guys I know how to set up the K3 to faithfully capture receive audio and play it back with frequencies below 200Hz, so if you know how to maintain the same amplitude of signal on the receive low end that matches the transmi
tted low end, we would really appreciate it. Thanks.

From:
Larry Martus Wassmann
Non omnis moriar
(Not all of me will die) - - - The good I do will live forever.

www.w3oz.com
______________________________________________________________
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

Larry,

I do not believe in, nor use excessive low frequency audio. My use
for the full 4 KHz receive is for simultaneous decoding of JT65 and
JT9 signals. In that regard I am setting DATA A (or USB) to LO =
0.20, HI = 4.20 or FC = 2.20, BW = 4.00. Multiple measurements
shows the receive bandwidth to be flat from 300 - 4000 Hz and down
slightly at 200/4200 Hz with no RX EQ.

I have absolutely no use for the distortion inducing, power wasting
and QRM generating SSB audio below 200 Hz. As such both my TX and
RX EQ are set for maximum cut at 50 at 100 Hz.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 4/27/2014 7:48 AM, Larry Wassmann wrote:

> Joe W4TV
>
>
> Joe maybe you can tell me where I am going wrong then. I use the 6K
> ESSB filter and have the K3 set up for 4K transmission. When I, and
> other look at my signal I am in fact transmitting out to 4K when
> measured on a spectrum analyzers. But when I look at signals myself
> on my receiver band pass display on the SA, all I can see is signals
> out to about 3.5 or a little better. I have the center frequency set
> at *155. I was told that is what it is supposed to be set at. If I
> move the center frequency up to 200Hz yes I can receive up to 4K but
> the bottom end amplitude is way down and when I try to play that
> audio back via the DVR everyone says they have lost their bottom end.
> What am I doing wrong? Are there other filters I should be using. I
> or none of the other guys I know how to set up the K3 to faithfully
> capture receive audio and play it back with frequencies below 200Hz,
> so if you know how to maintain the same amplitude of signal on the
> receive low end that matches the transmi tted low end, we would
> really appreciate it. Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Larry Martus Wassmann Non omnis moriar (Not all of me will die)
> - - - The good I do will live forever.
>
> www.w3oz.com
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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]

Don Wilhelm-4

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

In reply to this post by The Wizard

Larry,

Use Hi-Cut and Lo-Cut rather than Width and Shift and you will have much
better luck.
You can set the Low end down to 0.00 if you want, and the High end to
4.2 kHz. Each end of the DSP filter width is independent when using
Hi-Cut and Lo-Cut. The low end response of the audio stages will be a
limiting factor as well as the low pass filter in the audio path to keep
high frequency white noise at bay.

I do not operate ESSB, so I have not measured the response with the DSP
filter set that wide, but try it and see if that helps.

73,
Don W3FPR

On 4/27/2014 7:48 AM, Larry Wassmann wrote:
> Joe maybe you can tell me where I am going wrong then. I use the 6K ESSB filter and have the K3 set up for 4K transmission. When I, and other look at my signal I am in fact transmitting out to 4K when measured on a spectrum analyzers. But when I look at signals myself on my receiver band pass display on the SA, all I can see is signals out to about 3.5 or a little better. I have the center frequency set at *155. I was told that is what it is supposed to be set at. If I move the center frequency up to 200Hz yes I can receive up to 4K but the bottom end amplitude is way down and when I try to play that audio back via the DVR everyone says they have lost their bottom end. What am I doing wrong? Are there other filters I should be using. I or none of the other guys I know how to set up the K3 to faithfully capture receive audio and play it back with frequencies below 200Hz, so if you know how to maintain the same amplitude of signal on the receive low end that matches the trans
mi
> tted low end, we would really appreciate it. Thanks.
>
>

______________________________________________________________
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

Don,

> You can set the Low end down to 0.00 if you want, and the High end to
> 4.2 kHz. Each end of the DSP filter width is independent when using
> Hi-Cut and Lo-Cut.

That is not entirely true. The maximum difference between LO and HI
is limited to 4.0 KHz. If one can stand the "roar" with LO = 0.00,
HI will not go above 4.00. If one sets HI = 4.2 for maximum hiss, LO
will not go below 0.20.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 4/27/2014 9:44 AM, Don Wilhelm wrote:

> Larry,
>
> Use Hi-Cut and Lo-Cut rather than Width and Shift and you will have much
> better luck.
> You can set the Low end down to 0.00 if you want, and the High end to
> 4.2 kHz. Each end of the DSP filter width is independent when using
> Hi-Cut and Lo-Cut. The low end response of the audio stages will be a
> limiting factor as well as the low pass filter in the audio path to keep
> high frequency white noise at bay.
>
> I do not operate ESSB, so I have not measured the response with the DSP
> filter set that wide, but try it and see if that helps.
>
> 73,
> Don W3FPR
>
> On 4/27/2014 7:48 AM, Larry Wassmann wrote:
>> Joe maybe you can tell me where I am going wrong then. I use the 6K
>> ESSB filter and have the K3 set up for 4K transmission. When I, and
>> other look at my signal I am in fact transmitting out to 4K when
>> measured on a spectrum analyzers. But when I look at signals myself on
>> my receiver band pass display on the SA, all I can see is signals out
>> to about 3.5 or a little better. I have the center frequency set at
>> *155. I was told that is what it is supposed to be set at. If I move
>> the center frequency up to 200Hz yes I can receive up to 4K but the
>> bottom end amplitude is way down and when I try to play that audio
>> back via the DVR everyone says they have lost their bottom end. What
>> am I doing wrong? Are there other filters I should be using. I or none
>> of the other guys I know how to set up the K3 to faithfully capture
>> receive audio and play it back with frequencies below 200Hz, so if you
>> know how to maintain the same amplitude of signal on the receive low
>> end that matches the trans
> mi
>> tted low end, we would really appreciate it. Thanks.
>>
>>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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 The Wizard

Hi,

Sorry to jump in on the thread, without an answer, but a question-- why
the need for a low end below 200 HZ? We are not broadcast stations
after all... Maybe I am missing something but I see zero reason for all
of this Extended SSB, all it seems to do is cause splatter...

--
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 11:48 +0000, Larry Wassmann wrote:
> Joe W4TV
>
>
> Joe maybe you can tell me where I am going wrong then. I use the 6K ESSB filter and have the K3 set up for 4K transmission. When I, and other look at my signal I am in fact transmitting out to 4K when measured on a spectrum analyzers. But when I look at signals myself on my receiver band pass display on the SA, all I can see is signals out to about 3.5 or a little better. I have the center frequency set at *155. I was told that is what it is supposed to be set at. If I move the center frequency up to 200Hz yes I can receive up to 4K but the bottom end amplitude is way down and when I try to play that audio back via the DVR everyone says they have lost their bottom end. What am I doing wrong? Are there other filters I should be using. I or none of the other guys I know how to set up the K3 to faithfully capture receive audio and play it back with frequencies below 200Hz, so if you know how to maintain the same amplitude of signal on the receive low end that matches the trans
mi

> tted low end, we would really appreciate it. Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> Larry Martus Wassmann
> Non omnis moriar
> (Not all of me will die) - - - The good I do will live forever.
>
> www.w3oz.com
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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

Absolutely! In addition, overly "pumped" low end simply adds hum,
rumble and IMD to the audio. Professional audio engineers have
learned to cut the low end on audio production/recording/broadcast
for a very long time except where absolutely necessary and even
then most pros use a low-cut set around 100 Hz unless they are
trying to record a bass, tuba, piano, organ, etc. with significant
program content below low C (~130 Hz) or deep C (~65 Hz).

Very few male voices are pitched below 100 Hz - it seems to me the
lowest recorded was around 80 Hz - the fundamental range of a bass
vocalist is typically E2 (~82 Hz) to E4 (~330 Hz). Communications
quality (ITU: 2.8 KHz bandwidth) adequately covers 200 to 3000 Hz or
100 to 2900 Hz. Even "toll grade" (2.1 to 2.4 KHz bandwidth) audio
in the old days was more than adequate for reasonable communications.

It is particularly worth noting that the ratio of fundamental to
harmonic content in speech is quite high and systems which do not
substantially reduce the fundamental power typically sound muddy and
distorted. Broadcast systems typically use preemphasis (decreased
lows/increased highs) in transmission with corresponding deemphasis
(high frequency roll off) in reception to reduce channel noise and
improve reception.

The infantile fascination with SSB flat from 50 Hz to 4000 Hz is
nothing more than another childish, bandwidth wasting, QRM generating
temper-tantrum from those who don't know better or don't care.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 4/27/2014 10:13 AM, David Cole wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry to jump in on the thread, without an answer, but a question-- why
> the need for a low end below 200 HZ? We are not broadcast stations
> after all... Maybe I am missing something but I see zero reason for all
> of this Extended SSB, all it seems to do is cause splatter...
>
______________________________________________________________
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

OK... It's not just me then... It is refreshing to hear someone
actually mention pre/de emphasis in a discussion about reducing channel
noise... THANK YOU JOE!

I thought I was loosing my mind for a while, hearing these ESSB
stations.

I do mostly CW, so I almost never get into the SSB portion of the band.
Of late I have been running into these people, and the 4KC Plus splat
they create. That was a surprise!

--
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 12:43 -0400, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

> Absolutely! In addition, overly "pumped" low end simply adds hum,
> rumble and IMD to the audio. Professional audio engineers have
> learned to cut the low end on audio production/recording/broadcast
> for a very long time except where absolutely necessary and even
> then most pros use a low-cut set around 100 Hz unless they are
> trying to record a bass, tuba, piano, organ, etc. with significant
> program content below low C (~130 Hz) or deep C (~65 Hz).
>
> Very few male voices are pitched below 100 Hz - it seems to me the
> lowest recorded was around 80 Hz - the fundamental range of a bass
> vocalist is typically E2 (~82 Hz) to E4 (~330 Hz). Communications
> quality (ITU: 2.8 KHz bandwidth) adequately covers 200 to 3000 Hz or
> 100 to 2900 Hz. Even "toll grade" (2.1 to 2.4 KHz bandwidth) audio
> in the old days was more than adequate for reasonable communications.
>
> It is particularly worth noting that the ratio of fundamental to
> harmonic content in speech is quite high and systems which do not
> substantially reduce the fundamental power typically sound muddy and
> distorted. Broadcast systems typically use preemphasis (decreased
> lows/increased highs) in transmission with corresponding deemphasis
> (high frequency roll off) in reception to reduce channel noise and
> improve reception.
>
> The infantile fascination with SSB flat from 50 Hz to 4000 Hz is
> nothing more than another childish, bandwidth wasting, QRM generating
> temper-tantrum from those who don't know better or don't care.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 4/27/2014 10:13 AM, David Cole wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sorry to jump in on the thread, without an answer, but a question-- why
> > the need for a low end below 200 HZ? We are not broadcast stations
> > after all... Maybe I am missing something but I see zero reason for all
> > of this Extended SSB, all it seems to do is cause splatter...
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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]

Phil Kane-2

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

In reply to this post by NK7Z

On 4/27/2014 7:13 AM, David Cole wrote:

> Sorry to jump in on the thread, without an answer, but a question-- why
> the need for a low end below 200 HZ? We are not broadcast stations
> after all... Maybe I am missing something but I see zero reason for all
> of this Extended SSB, all it seems to do is cause splatter...

As we used to say in the broadcasting field - it gives Fidelity Free
audio! :)
-- --
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
Elecraft K2/100 s/n 5402

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon
______________________________________________________________
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]

riese-k3djc

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

In reply to this post by The Wizard

Thanks for saying it

Bob K3DJC

>
> The infantile fascination with SSB flat from 50 Hz to 4000 Hz is
> nothing more than another childish, bandwidth wasting, QRM
> generating
> temper-tantrum from those who don't know better or don't care.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 4/27/2014 10:13 AM, David Cole wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sorry to jump in on the thread, without an answer, but a
> question-- why
> > the need for a low end below 200 HZ? We are not broadcast
> stations
> > after all... Maybe I am missing something but I see zero reason
> for all
> of this Extended SSB, all it seems to do is cause splatter...
> >

Phil Wheeler-2

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

My take on the original post is that it related to
questioning whether a rig was working as it
should, not a philosophical discussion of whether
ESSB is good or not, though I agree that its use
is pointless and bandwidth-wasting.

Phil w7ox

On 4/27/14, 12:08 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Thanks for saying it
>
>
> Bob K3DJC
>
>
>> The infantile fascination with SSB flat from 50 Hz to 4000 Hz is
>> nothing more than another childish, bandwidth wasting, QRM
>> generating
>> temper-tantrum from those who don't know better or don't care.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> ... Joe, W4TV

Grant Youngman

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

In reply to this post by riese-k3djc

?

The infantile fascination with SSB restricted to 300-3000 (or less) Hz is nothing more than another childish, restricted bandwidth temper tantrum from those who don’t know better or don’t care.

This never ending bandwidth argument is pointless. There’s a time and place for both.

I’d worry more, frankly, about the horrendous, over-driven, over powered, bad sounding, splatter-laden, rudely behaved signals during a contest than a few guys who happen to like a bit of bandwidth any other time when the bands tend to be relatively uncrowded wastelands.

Grant NQ5T

On Apr 27, 2014, at 2:08 PM, <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks for saying it
>
>
> Bob K3DJC
>
>
>>
>> The infantile fascination with SSB flat from 50 Hz to 4000 Hz is
>> nothing more than another childish, bandwidth wasting, QRM
>> generating
>> temper-tantrum from those who don't know better or don't care.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> ... Joe, W4TV
>>
>>

Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

On 4/27/2014 12:30 PM, GRANT YOUNGMAN wrote:
> The infantile fascination with SSB restricted to 300-3000 (or less) Hz is nothing more than another childish, restricted bandwidth temper tantrum from those who don’t know better or don’t care.
I would also hope there is a time and place for more courtesy.

Can we dial down the rhetoric? Calling something outdated is fine.
Infantile and Childish is a tiny bit much.

73 -- Lynn
______________________________________________________________
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 Phil Kane-2

Phil,
I understand totally, I spent 30 years of my life as a Broadcast
engineer... :)
--
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 12:04 -0700, Phil Kane wrote:

> On 4/27/2014 7:13 AM, David Cole wrote:
>
> > Sorry to jump in on the thread, without an answer, but a question-- why
> > the need for a low end below 200 HZ? We are not broadcast stations
> > after all... Maybe I am missing something but I see zero reason for all
> > of this Extended SSB, all it seems to do is cause splatter...
>
> As we used to say in the broadcasting field - it gives Fidelity Free
> audio! :)
> -- --
> 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
> Elecraft K2/100 s/n 5402
>
> From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
> Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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 Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT

> I would also hope there is a time and place for more courtesy.

Including maintaining a *clean*, narrow signal that does not use
half again as much spectrum as a reasonable communications grade
signal as defined by ITU (and NTIA).

> 97.3(a)(43) Spurious emission. An emission, or frequencies outside
> the necessary bandwidth of a transmission, the level of which may be
> reduced without affecting the information being transmitted.

(SSB) Phone = 2K80J3E => Necessary bandwidth 2.8 KHz. Emissions outside
2.80 KHz = "Spurious emission"

> 97.307(a) No amateur station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth
> than necessary for the information rate and emission type being
> transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice.

> 97.307 (c) All spurious emissions from a station transmitter must be
> reduced to the greatest extent practicable. If any spurious emission,
> including chassis or power line radiation, causes harmful
> interference to the reception of another radio station, the licensee
> of the interfering amateur station is required to take steps to
> eliminate the interference, in accordance with good engineering
> practice.

SSB greater than 2.8 KHz is neither "good engineering practice" nor
"necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted".

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 4/27/2014 4:20 PM, Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT wrote:

> On 4/27/2014 12:30 PM, GRANT YOUNGMAN wrote:
>> The infantile fascination with SSB restricted to 300-3000 (or less) Hz
>> is nothing more than another childish, restricted bandwidth temper
>> tantrum from those who don’t know better or don’t care.
> I would also hope there is a time and place for more courtesy.
>
> Can we dial down the rhetoric? Calling something outdated is fine.
> Infantile and Childish is a tiny bit much.
>
> 73 -- Lynn
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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]
>

KV5J

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

Joe,

You shouldn't have any problem agreeing RTTY should not be
used as a digital mode.

Keith, K5ENS

> I would also hope there is a time and place for more courtesy.

Including maintaining a *clean*, narrow signal that does not use
half again as much spectrum as a reasonable communications grade
signal as defined by ITU (and NTIA).

> 97.3(a)(43) Spurious emission. An emission, or frequencies outside
> the necessary bandwidth of a transmission, the level of which may be
> reduced without affecting the information being transmitted.

(SSB) Phone = 2K80J3E => Necessary bandwidth 2.8 KHz. Emissions outside
2.80 KHz = "Spurious emission"

> 97.307(a) No amateur station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth
> than necessary for the information rate and emission type being
> transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice.

> 97.307 (c) All spurious emissions from a station transmitter must be
> reduced to the greatest extent practicable. If any spurious emission,
> including chassis or power line radiation, causes harmful
> interference to the reception of another radio station, the licensee
> of the interfering amateur station is required to take steps to
> eliminate the interference, in accordance with good engineering
> practice.

SSB greater than 2.8 KHz is neither "good engineering practice" nor
"necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted".

73,

... Joe, W4TV

Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

In what regard? 45.45 baud/170 Hz shift Baudot RTTY is not excessively
wide and certainly within the bandwidth requirements (300 baud/1000 Hz
shift).

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 4/27/2014 5:43 PM, XE3/K5ENS via Elecraft wrote:

> Joe,
>
> You shouldn't have any problem agreeing RTTY should not be
> used as a digital mode.
>
> Keith, K5ENS
>
>
>
>> I would also hope there is a time and place for more courtesy.
>
> Including maintaining a *clean*, narrow signal that does not use
> half again as much spectrum as a reasonable communications grade
> signal as defined by ITU (and NTIA).
>
>> 97.3(a)(43) Spurious emission. An emission, or frequencies outside
>> the necessary bandwidth of a transmission, the level of which may be
>> reduced without affecting the information being transmitted.
>
> (SSB) Phone = 2K80J3E => Necessary bandwidth 2.8 KHz. Emissions outside
> 2.80 KHz = "Spurious emission"
>
>> 97.307(a) No amateur station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth
>> than necessary for the information rate and emission type being
>> transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice.
>
>> 97.307 (c) All spurious emissions from a station transmitter must be
>> reduced to the greatest extent practicable. If any spurious emission,
>> including chassis or power line radiation, causes harmful
>> interference to the reception of another radio station, the licensee
>> of the interfering amateur station is required to take steps to
>> eliminate the interference, in accordance with good engineering
>> practice.
>
> SSB greater than 2.8 KHz is neither "good engineering practice" nor
> "necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted".
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Is-there-a-reason-the-receive-is-so-Skinny-tp7587977p7587998.html
> Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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]
>

Don Wilhelm-4

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

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

OK, I will "jump into the fray" with some of my observations and opinions.

I have heard some of the ESSB crowd maintain that they are striving for
the best SSB signal that can be achieved within the limits of the 2.8
kHz bandwidth. However, the requests for audio at very low audio
frequencies (less than 200 Hz) and highs at 4000 Hz and above cannot fit
within a 2.8 kHz bandwidth at all.

We are to transmit using "communications" grade rather than "broadcast
quality".

I do hope all who are participating in ESSB are aware of the 2.8 kHz
bandwidth limitation imposed by the regulations that you have quoted,
but I fear that those rules are being violated.

The FCC rules say that an amateur station is to limit the bandwidth to
that necessary for communications, and that is generally accepted as a
2.8 kHz bandwidth for voice communications.

For what purpose? To sound like a broadcast station? I do not see the
merit in that since amateur radio should be more concerned with
communications effectiveness which means reducing the low frequency
content and transmitting within a 2.8 kHz bandwidth.

I will not comment on the continued use of AM which occupies twice the
bandwidth (or more) of an SSB signal. Certainly, the K3 does AM mode,
but IMHO, it should not be used on HF.

How about if we banish ESSB and AM to the VHF/UHF region where there is
ample space for wideband transmissions. The use of those modes in the
HF region is a waste of precious spectrum and since most of those who
adhere to those modes seem to be running substantial power, it squeezes
the other hams who would like to operate in that part of the spectrum of
available space - in other words, creates unnecessary interference.

73,
Don W3FPR

On 4/27/2014 5:22 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

>
> > I would also hope there is a time and place for more courtesy.
>
> Including maintaining a *clean*, narrow signal that does not use
> half again as much spectrum as a reasonable communications grade
> signal as defined by ITU (and NTIA).
>
>> 97.3(a)(43) Spurious emission. An emission, or frequencies outside
>> the necessary bandwidth of a transmission, the level of which may be
>> reduced without affecting the information being transmitted.
>
> (SSB) Phone = 2K80J3E => Necessary bandwidth 2.8 KHz. Emissions outside
> 2.80 KHz = "Spurious emission"
>
>> 97.307(a) No amateur station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth
>> than necessary for the information rate and emission type being
>> transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice.
>
>> 97.307 (c) All spurious emissions from a station transmitter must be
>> reduced to the greatest extent practicable. If any spurious emission,
>> including chassis or power line radiation, causes harmful
>> interference to the reception of another radio station, the licensee
>> of the interfering amateur station is required to take steps to
>> eliminate the interference, in accordance with good engineering
>> practice.
>
> SSB greater than 2.8 KHz is neither "good engineering practice" nor
> "necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted".
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 4/27/2014 4:20 PM, Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT wrote:
>> On 4/27/2014 12:30 PM, GRANT YOUNGMAN wrote:
>>> The infantile fascination with SSB restricted to 300-3000 (or less) Hz
>>> is nothing more than another childish, restricted bandwidth temper
>>> tantrum from those who don’t know better or don’t care.
>> I would also hope there is a time and place for more courtesy.
>>
>> Can we dial down the rhetoric? Calling something outdated is fine.
>> Infantile and Childish is a tiny bit much.
>>
>> 73 -- Lynn
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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]
>

KV5J

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

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

Joe,

Because there are other narrower digital modes that can do the same thing.
RTTY uses much bandwidth. Just like you claim ESSB uses to much.

Keith, K5ENS

Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

If you are referring to PSK31, it is significantly less sensitive
than traditional RTTY. If your reference is to JT65/JT9, they support
structured messages only.

In any case , 45 baud/170 H shift RTTY is well within the rules but
SSB more than 2.8 KHz wide is not permitted under rules that define
communication quality voice as 2.8 KHz.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 4/27/2014 5:57 PM, XE3/K5ENS via Elecraft wrote:

> Joe,
>
> Because there are other narrower digital modes that can do the same thing.
> RTTY uses much bandwidth. Just like you claim ESSB uses to much.
>
> Keith, K5ENS
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Is-there-a-reason-the-receive-is-so-Skinny-tp7587977p7588002.html
> Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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]
>

KV5J

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

RTTY is an old outdated digital mode and severs only one thing these days. Contesting.

Keith