We were waiting for you to get busy with something else. :-P Joe M.
wb6dgn wrote: > Hey, guys! I'm trying to rewire my workbench area and I can't keep my mind > on what I'm doing, thinking about this subject! Where were you guys when I > had nothing else to do??? Nuts! Back to the workbench. > Tom > > --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "wb6dgn" <wb6...@...> wrote: >> Also, wouldn't Carson's rule mitigate that characteristic? >> >> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH <mch@> wrote: >>> I would agree with the quality issues, but does that really equate to >>> unintelligibility on any significant scale? >>> >>> Joe M. >>> >>> Matthew Kaufman wrote: >>>> On 8/27/2010 8:18 PM, wb6dgn wrote: >>>>> If you reduce the modulation without reducing the receiver bandwidth, >>>>> then, yes, the range will be reduced. You have reduced the signal >>>>> without also reducing the noise. However, if you reduce the modulation >>>>> and, at the same time, reduce the receiver bandwidth and audio recovery, >>>>> by a like amount, then I do not see how the signal:noise ratio, and >>>>> therefore range, would change appreciably. >>>> Relationships aren't linear, or you'd be right. Reducing the modulation >>>> index and simultaneously reducing the receiver bandwidth from 5 to 2.5 >>>> kHz results in a situation which requires ~6 db more signal level for >>>> the same demodulated quality (ex. 12db SINAD) >>>> >>>> Matthew Kaufman >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
