Elecraft

Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

Classic

List

Threaded

29 messages Options

The Wizard

Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

I am sorry now that I asked what I thought was a reasonable question. Looking for some help. But I guess most just wanted to vent their particular bias and dislike for other hams having fun doing what they want to do with their K3s. Why does Elecraft offer what they call a ESSB filter? Why do almost all new rigs come with EQs now? Do you think any of us audio guys had any influence? True thanks for those who sent me mail giving me real help and not just bash me and other who enjoy sounding like men not some little girl with her panties too tight.

73 OZ

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]

Jim Brown-10

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

On 4/27/2014 2:41 PM, Larry Wassmann wrote:
> Do you think any of us audio guys had any influence?

W4TV is "an audio guy" -- specifically a retired broadcast engineer who
worked in TV. So am I "an audio guy" -- specifically a retired audio
professional who worked in sound reinforcement, recording for broadcast
and CD releases, and before that in broadcast radio and TV. I'm also a
Fellow of the Audio Engineering Society.

W4TV is entirely correct in his recommendations, and the only extent to
which we differ is that I strongly recommend an octave less low
frequency bandwidth than he does. Using the TXEQ built into the K3, I
recommend full cut of the three lowest octave bands (50, 100, and 200 Hz
centers), and 6dB cut of the 400 Hz band.

Why? Because as a consultant specializing in the design of very high
quality sound systems for acoustically challenging performance and
worship spaces, I learned that 90% of all speech intelligibility is
conveyed between 400 Hz and 5 kHz, but that voices and room noise have
lots of energy below 400 Hz that wastes TX power. The octaves below 500
Hz contain about half of the ENERGY in speech, but contribute only about
5% to speech intelligibility. So getting rid of that wasted power and
cranking up the mic gain by 3dB is the equivalent of doubling our output
power!

The octave above 3 kHz adds only 10% to speech intelligibility, but
burns twice as much RF bandwidth. That's OK on a dead band, but it IS
selfish and inconsiderate when others want to use that spectrum. As
Riley Hollingsworth (the enforcement guy at the FCC who cleaned up the
ham bands before retiring several years ago) has said both in print and
at a speech at Dayton, "if you want to transmit wideband audio, get
yourself a broadcast station." Riley is active on the ham bands. I've
worked him several times during contests.

Why do rigs include equalizers? First, because hams want them, whether
for a good reason or a bad one. HOW we use them is what matters.

73, Jim K9YC
______________________________________________________________
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

On 4/27/2014 6:18 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
> Why do rigs include equalizers? First, because hams want them,
> whether for a good reason or a bad one. HOW we use them is what
> matters.

Equalizers have a positive use with overly wide microphones like
most electrets. Cut everything below 100 Hz, roll off 200 Hz a
bit, add a modest 3 to 5 dB per octave rise above 1000 Hz and pull
it back down above 3 KHz and one generally has outstanding audio
that sounds very life-like.

Unfortunately like any tool, EQ can be misused unintentionally by those
who don't know how to use it properly or misused intentionally by those
who don't care about the impact to others.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

______________________________________________________________
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]

k6dgw

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

In reply to this post by Jim Brown-10

I set up my K3 TX EQ as recommended by Jim. Admittedly, I do not
operate a lot of SSB, primarily in a small number of contests, but when
I do I have gotten unsolicited reports of "really great audio." Since
this happens in nearly every SSB contest I get into, I've concluded that
Jim knows a whole lot more about audio than I do. :-)

I run the ALC indicator with the 5th bar about half-on, and the
compression no higher than 10 dB. I'm using the Heil headset from
Elecraft with the electret element.

FWIW: My hearing was damaged a long time ago and I'm fairly deaf
[reason for not a lot of SSB]. Jim also suggested a technique with the
RX EQ which may work for others that effectively doubles the range of
the EQ. My hearing aids are at afterburner roar, and the +16 dB of
available boost in the highs doesn't do much. His suggestion was to cut
the lows and turn up the AF gain some. This gives me about 30 dB of
range in the EQ, still not enough but a lot better than 16.

73,

Fred K6DGW
- Northern California Contest Club
- CU in the 2014 Cal QSO Party 4-5 Oct 2014
- www.cqp.org

On 4/27/2014 3:18 PM, Jim Brown wrote:

> Using the TXEQ built into the K3, I
> recommend full cut of the three lowest octave bands (50, 100, and 200 Hz
> centers), and 6dB cut of the 400 Hz band.

______________________________________________________________
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

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

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

Joe, you seems to be the Resident Authority on the subject matter!

((((73)))) Milverton.

On Sunday, April 27, 2014 5:56 PM, "Joe Subich, W4TV" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>On 4/27/2014 6:18 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
>> Why do rigs include equalizers? First, because hams want them,
>> whether for a good reason or a bad one. HOW we use them is what
>> matters.
>
>Equalizers have a positive use with overly wide microphones like
>most electrets. Cut everything below 100 Hz, roll off 200 Hz a
>bit, add a modest 3 to 5 dB per octave rise above 1000 Hz and pull
>it back down above 3 KHz and one generally has outstanding audio
>that sounds very life-like.
>
>Unfortunately like any tool, EQ can be misused unintentionally by those
>who don't know how to use it properly or misused intentionally by those
>who don't care about the impact to others.
>
>73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
>______________________________________________________________
>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

Larry,
Respectfully, I have to disagree with you here... I built a state of
the art fully digital audio studio for movie studio use three years ago,
so I would fall into the "Audio Guys" group...

I really do think ESSB sounds cool, and the audio person in me likes to
hear it, but the engineer in me thinks the ham bands are just the wrong
place for it. At least below 100 MHz.

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?

--
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 21:41 +0000, Larry Wassmann wrote:

> I am sorry now that I asked what I thought was a reasonable question. Looking for some help. But I guess most just wanted to vent their particular bias and dislike for other hams having fun doing what they want to do with their K3s. Why does Elecraft offer what they call a ESSB filter? Why do almost all new rigs come with EQs now? Do you think any of us audio guys had any influence? True thanks for those who sent me mail giving me real help and not just bash me and other who enjoy sounding like men not some little girl with her panties too tight.
>
>
> 73 OZ
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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]

Johnny Siu

Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

In reply to this post by Jim Brown-10

Hello Jim,

I agree with you about the recommended EQ settings on TX. Your suggested settings are even more useful when operating QRP with KX3. I would like to squeeze every bit of power from KX3 into speech contents so that the other end can copy me.

With good use of EQ, we are able to turn a number of bargain computer headset boom mic into good audio during TX and RX.

73

Johnny VR2XMC

________________________________
寄件人︰ Jim Brown <[hidden email]>
收件人︰ [hidden email]
傳送日期︰ 2014年04月28日 (週一) 6:18 AM
主題︰ Re: [Elecraft] Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

On 4/27/2014 2:41 PM, Larry Wassmann wrote:
> Do you think any of us audio guys had any influence?

W4TV is "an audio guy" -- specifically a retired broadcast engineer who
worked in TV. So am I "an audio guy" -- specifically a retired audio
professional who worked in sound reinforcement, recording for broadcast
and CD releases, and before that in broadcast radio and TV. I'm also a
Fellow of the Audio Engineering Society.

W4TV is entirely correct in his recommendations, and the only extent to
which we differ is that I strongly recommend an octave less low
frequency bandwidth than he does. Using the TXEQ built into the K3, I
recommend full cut of the three lowest octave bands (50, 100, and 200 Hz
centers), and 6dB cut of the 400 Hz band.

Why? Because as a consultant specializing in the design of very high
quality sound systems for acoustically challenging performance and
worship spaces, I learned that 90% of all speech intelligibility is
conveyed between 400 Hz and 5 kHz, but that voices and room noise have
lots of energy below 400 Hz that wastes TX power. The octaves below 500
Hz contain about half of the ENERGY in speech, but contribute only about
5% to speech intelligibility. So getting rid of that wasted power and
cranking up the mic gain by 3dB is the equivalent of doubling our output
power!

The octave above 3 kHz adds only 10% to speech intelligibility, but
burns twice as much RF bandwidth. That's OK on a dead band, but it IS
selfish and inconsiderate when others want to use that spectrum. As
Riley Hollingsworth (the enforcement guy at the FCC who cleaned up the
ham bands before retiring several years ago) has said both in print and
at a speech at Dayton, "if you want to transmit wideband audio, get
yourself a broadcast station." Riley is active on the ham bands. I've
worked him several times during contests.

Why do rigs include equalizers? First, because hams want them, whether
for a good reason or a bad one. HOW we use them is what matters.

73, Jim K9YC

______________________________________________________________
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

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

In reply to this post by NK7Z

>>>> 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.

On Sunday, April 27, 2014 7:04 PM, David Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:

Larry,

>Respectfully, I have to disagree with you here... I built a state of
>the art fully digital audio studio for movie studio use three years ago,
>so I would fall into the "Audio Guys" group...
>
>I really do think ESSB sounds cool, and the audio person in me likes to
>hear it, but the engineer in me thinks the ham bands are just the wrong
>place for it. At least below 100 MHz.
>
>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?
>
>--
>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 21:41 +0000, Larry Wassmann wrote:
>> I am sorry now that I asked what I thought was a reasonable question. Looking for some help. But I guess most just wanted to vent their particular bias and dislike for other hams having fun doing what they want to do with their K3s. Why does Elecraft offer what they call a ESSB filter? Why do almost all new rigs come with EQs now? Do you think any of us audio guys had any influence? True thanks for those who sent me mail giving me real help and not just bash me and other who enjoy sounding like men not some little girl with her panties too tight.
>>
>>
>> 73 OZ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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]
>
>
>

Phil Kane-2

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

On 4/27/2014 5:42 PM, Milverton M. Swire via Elecraft wrote:

> 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

That was 10 years ago. A fresh look would be in order.
-- --
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 Elecraft mailing list

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

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

>>>> 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]
>
>
>

Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

> 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,

... Joe, W4TV

On 4/27/2014 9:39 PM, [hidden email] 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]
>>
>>
>>

w0mu

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

In reply to this post by Elecraft mailing list

98 percent of contesters? Exaggerate much?

I am sure we can find examples of your infractions easily enough during
non contest periods.

So many trolls...............

Mike W0MU

On 4/27/2014 7:39 PM, Milverton M. Swire via Elecraft wrote:

KV5J

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

None of this will matter soon as we will have a new mode button.
Digital Voice will be the new SSB. Then everyone can complain
about all the SSBers taking up 2.8 KHz.

Keith

k6dgw

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

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

Since I don't casually frequent the SSB sub-bands, where and when would
I be likely to find ESSB? I'd like to see what it sounds like. I have
an FT-847 which is pretty broad in SSB, might be fun to compare it to
the K3.

And, sadly for Milverton, I will admit to being a somewhat casual
contester, mainly CW and some RTTY, not a lot on SSB since I can't hear
it all that well.

73,

Fred K6DGW
- Northern California Contest Club
- CU in the 2014 Cal QSO Party 4-5 Oct 2014
- www.cqp.org

On 4/27/2014 7:09 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

> 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.

______________________________________________________________
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

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

In reply to this post by w0mu

>>>> Hardly - most contesters are focused on keeping their audio "tight"
for maximum efficiency. <<<<

I wonder which planet you're orbiting on a contest week end? !!!!!!

Joe, you just got a thing for ESSBer, and here comes Larry asking his question

this morning, which presented the avenue you were seeking to get on your Podium.

Well!

If that's what put cream in your twinkie, go ahead and knock yourself out.
Not everyone shares or endorse your opinion.

ps. This is not an attack against you, just an observation.

(((( 73)))) Milverton.

On Sunday, April 27, 2014 9:18 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <[hidden email]> wrote:

98 percent of contesters? Exaggerate much?

>
>I am sure we can find examples of your infractions easily enough during
>non contest periods.
>
>So many trolls...............
>
>Mike W0MU
>
>On 4/27/2014 7:39 PM, 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]
>
>
>

Grant Youngman

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

In reply to this post by k6dgw

You can find some ESSB around 7230 daytimes, and 14.178 give or take. I haven’t heard the 20M guys for a while, but I haven't been there listening either.

Some of the guys on 40 do exhibit the false carrier artifact that Joe referred to. But the band isn’t crowded during the day (or hasn’t been) so it seems the question is SO? They’re not bothering anyone except the bandwidth police who complain about a 6 or 8 kHz wide AM signal, too, as being “horrible” on 75 meters when the band is otherwise DEAD. (ESSB sounds darn good on a receiver with wide bandwidth and good audio response, and the AM community in general are good neighbors on the bands).

We have enough trouble with HOA’s beating us up — why do we insist on beating up on our fellow hams who might enjoy some aspect of ham radio that we don’t? I don’t understand it, other than reflecting some drive to be IN CONTROL of what others are allowed to do, not because it affects us personally, or is even good for the hobby, but just … because … control. I rarely bother to even turn on the radio when the ever increasing number of contests ruins the bands for me — but I also don’t spend all of my time trying to outlaw contests …

We each have points of view. But there’s a tendency to treat this whole bandwidth nonsense as a religious war (I know, I’m guilty, too) — which isn’t a good thing.

Grant NQ5T

On Apr 27, 2014, at 9:20 PM, Fred Jensen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Since I don't casually frequent the SSB sub-bands, where and when would I be likely to find ESSB? I'd like to see what it sounds like. I have an FT-847 which is pretty broad in SSB, might be fun to compare it to the K3.
>
> And, sadly for Milverton, I will admit to being a somewhat casual contester, mainly CW and some RTTY, not a lot on SSB since I can't hear it all that well.
>
> 73,
>
> Fred K6DGW
> - Northern California Contest Club
> - CU in the 2014 Cal QSO Party 4-5 Oct 2014
> - www.cqp.org
>
> On 4/27/2014 7:09 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>
>> 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.
>

Tim Herrick

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

I'm sorry but just because a band is not full of signals does not make it right to have a poor signal. In fact, I don't see anywhere
in the FCC regulations that states you can do whatever you want as long as you don't bother someone else.

To the other gentleman, I would like to ask for a link to the study that shows 98% of contesters have poor audio. CQ magazines
contests are now disqualifying stations with poor audio or signals on CW. That has been a bug in the bonnet of most contesters for
some time. So, again, I would like read the study that proves that 98% of contesters are operating poorly and purposely as you
intimate.

73,
Tim Herrick, KQ8M
[hidden email]

AR-Cluster V6 kq8m.no-ip.org
User Ports: 23, 7373 with local skimmer, 7374 without local skimmer
Server Ports: V6 3607, V4 Active 3605, V4 Passive 3606

-----Original Message-----
From: Elecraft [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of GRANT YOUNGMAN
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 10:56 PM
To: <[hidden email]> List
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

You can find some ESSB around 7230 daytimes, and 14.178 give or take. I haven't heard the 20M guys for a while, but I haven't been
there listening either.

Some of the guys on 40 do exhibit the false carrier artifact that Joe referred to. But the band isn't crowded during the day (or
hasn't been) so it seems the question is SO? They're not bothering anyone except the bandwidth police who complain about a 6 or 8
kHz wide AM signal, too, as being "horrible" on 75 meters when the band is otherwise DEAD. (ESSB sounds darn good on a receiver
with wide bandwidth and good audio response, and the AM community in general are good neighbors on the bands).

We have enough trouble with HOA's beating us up - why do we insist on beating up on our fellow hams who might enjoy some aspect of
ham radio that we don't? I don't understand it, other than reflecting some drive to be IN CONTROL of what others are allowed to do,
not because it affects us personally, or is even good for the hobby, but just . because . control. I rarely bother to even turn on
the radio when the ever increasing number of contests ruins the bands for me - but I also don't spend all of my time trying to
outlaw contests .

We each have points of view. But there's a tendency to treat this whole bandwidth nonsense as a religious war (I know, I'm guilty,
too) - which isn't a good thing.

Grant NQ5T

On Apr 27, 2014, at 9:20 PM, Fred Jensen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Since I don't casually frequent the SSB sub-bands, where and when would I be likely to find ESSB? I'd like to see what it sounds
like. I have an FT-847 which is pretty broad in SSB, might be fun to compare it to the K3.
>
> And, sadly for Milverton, I will admit to being a somewhat casual contester, mainly CW and some RTTY, not a lot on SSB since I
can't hear it all that well.

>
> 73,
>
> Fred K6DGW
> - Northern California Contest Club
> - CU in the 2014 Cal QSO Party 4-5 Oct 2014
> - www.cqp.org
>
> On 4/27/2014 7:09 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>
>> 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.
>

______________________________________________________________
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 Elecraft mailing list

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.

--
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 17:42 -0700, [hidden email] 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.
>
>
> On Sunday, April 27, 2014 7:04 PM, David Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Larry,
> Respectfully, I have to disagree with you here... I built a
> state of
> the art fully digital audio studio for movie studio use three
> years ago,
> so I would fall into the "Audio Guys" group...
>
> I really do think ESSB sounds cool, and the audio person in me
> likes to
> hear it, but the engineer in me thinks the ham bands are just
> the wrong
> place for it. At least below 100 MHz.
>
> 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?
>
> --
> 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 21:41 +0000, Larry Wassmann wrote:
> > I am sorry now that I asked what I thought was a reasonable
> question. Looking for some help. But I guess most just wanted
> to vent their particular bias and dislike for other hams
> having fun doing what they want to do with their K3s. Why does
> Elecraft offer what they call a ESSB filter? Why do almost all
> new rigs come with EQs now? Do you think any of us audio guys
> had any influence? True thanks for those who sent me mail
> giving me real help and not just bash me and other who enjoy
> sounding like men not some little girl with her panties too
> tight.
> >
> >
> > 73 OZ
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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]
>
>
>

w0mu

Re: Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

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.
>