Ah, good! I stepped on some toes! Radio Amateurs do not have unlimited spectra! I think this two channel stuff would be better described by the concepts of the old binaural sound which was used before some of you were born. It's just a simple idea that can be of use under some very special conditions. What I wanted to bring out is the relative unimportance of what we're talking about! There are technical issues without end that don't have black and white answers and that could be considered and it simply strikes me that, as a person whose interest in quality audio goes back to 1952, who has a room in his house called the virtual reality room, has 182 drivers in his sound reproduction system and whose speaker enclosures start out as concrete boxes in the basement, high fidelity or, as you might want to put it LOUDNESS, can be left at the bottom of the priority/interest pile! My point is simply that Flex radio is new and exciting and presents challenges for all of us at every turn. These audio principles have been well understood for a long long time and the goal where audio is concerned seems to be of questionable benefit. I also wondered about the fuss over true break in for CW. What on earth is the point of worrying about whether or not there is space between dits at 60 wpm? The importance of communicating? I'd hate to think that I would have to point out that it is what our hobby is all about!
73 Lee K9WRU ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Lux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "FlexRadio" <FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 8:32 AM Subject: Re: [Flexradio] FW: The inherent muddiness oftypical amateurtransceiver audio without EQ > Quoting Mike Naruta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on Tue 03 Jun 2008 06:12:51 AM PDT: > > > I suspect that it is because we always try > > to push the limits in ham radio. Sort of > > like the hot-rodder tinkering with the > > vehicle to squeeze even more performance > > out of it. > > > > > > Stereo: why not? Using independent > > sideband, we could do that. What better > > place to experiment than ham radio? There > > are several places in the spectrum where > > we can try wider-bandwidth transmissions. > > > > > > If we are dedicated to narrow bandwidth and > > efficiency, maybe we should be on CW. > > CW is unique in requiring perhaps the simplest of all transmitters, > although requiring a sophisticated receiver (to get the information > out.. not just to convert RF). > > However, it is not an energy or bandwidth efficient modulation (i.e. > the peak to average ratio is 2:1, so you have to run an amplifier with > twice the power, compared to some form of constant envelope > modulation). Folks who obsess about sending data with the absolute > most efficient means (sending back a few bits per second from deep > space) tend to use PSK in some form, with a LOT of coding. On HF > links, various multitone FSK/PSK schemes are popular, given the > particular channel properties. > > Jim, W6RMK > (who designs those deep space radios for a living) > > > > _______________________________________________ > FlexRadio Systems Mailing List > FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz > http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ > Knowledge Base: http://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com/ > > _______________________________________________ FlexRadio Systems Mailing List FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ Knowledge Base: http://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com/
