Joe, W4TV wrote:
This is key and should be enforced. Many years ago Bell Labs
(and others) proved rather thoroughly that 2.4 to 2.6 KHz
was more than adequately for communications purposes. Their
tests were specifically in relation to toll grade audio for
long distance telephony.
The FCC
@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Bass in audio is good
Excellent job Mike! And if someone doesn't like bass all they
need do is
adjust the EQ. Now we have a choice.
Steve Ellington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Mike Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: elecraft
Mike Scott-7 wrote:
I am surprised to hear that people don't like the extra bandwidth in the
audio response in the K3.
Because people use their radios in different ways. Some of us don't want to
waste energy generating frequencies that add nothing to the ability to be
heard when signals
If I could make my K3 sound like its using a Heil HC4
cartridge I would be happy. The Heil HC4 audio sound
is ESSB for me!
Maybe at sometime in the future transmitting through
the 2.1khz filter on SSB will be made possible.
A further refinement of carrier point adjustment
combined with an
-Original Message-
From: S Sacco [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We're not broadcasters, we're communicators.
That's true. But there are all sorts of communication!
That extra frequency response takes away from the spectrum available
for our fellow Amateurs.
Hold that thought
Don't even
:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Bass in audio is good
-Original Message-
From: S Sacco [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We're not broadcasters, we're communicators.
That's true. But there are all sorts of communication!
That extra frequency
-Original Message-
From: Joe Subich, W4TV [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Most HF users
want AM and ESSB (occupied bandwidth greater than required for
communications quality - 2.6 to 2.8 KHz) banned.
On what information do you make this claim?
73 de Jim, N2EY
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 12:00:51 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Joe Subich, W4TV [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Most HF users
want AM and ESSB (occupied bandwidth greater than required for
communications quality - 2.6 to 2.8 KHz) banned.
On what
-Original Message-
From: Joe Subich, W4TV
Most HF users want AM and ESSB (occupied bandwidth greater than required
for communications quality - 2.6 to 2.8 KHz) banned.
--
Oh really? Well, I guess I'm not part of most then. I'm a CW op but
I'm thrilled these
Darwin, Keith wrote:
I think it makes a lot of sense (a LOT) to say narrow bandwidth signals
at the low end of the band, wide signals at the top, mids in the middle.
If someone wants to run ESSB at 5 KHz, that's fine, we'll allocate some
space at the high end of the band so they can play have
On May 5, 2008, at 1:35 AM, G4ILO wrote:
Mike Scott-7 wrote:
I am surprised to hear that people don't like the extra bandwidth
in the
audio response in the K3.
Because people use their radios in different ways. Some of us don't
want to
waste energy generating frequencies that add
I feel lots of heat but very little light on this subject here.
Just different wavelengths of the same thing, Brian. And if you are
fast enough and in the right direction, you can shift either to the
other, can't you?
Next we will talk about how it is ALL digital, that there is no such
: Re: [Elecraft] Bass in audio is good
-Original Message-
From: Joe Subich, W4TV [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Most HF users
want AM and ESSB (occupied bandwidth greater than required for
communications quality - 2.6 to 2.8 KHz) banned.
On what information do you make this claim?
73 de Jim, N2EY
I don't think there is any doubt that Elecraft will not satisfy everybody
until the transmit bandwidth is made fully customizable, just like the
receiver. I understand that this is also Elecraft's intention. It would seem
to make sense to have a CONFIG option that works just like the hi/lo cut
On May 5, 2008, at 9:47 AM, Lyle Johnson wrote:
I feel lots of heat but very little light on this subject here.
Just different wavelengths of the same thing, Brian.
Well, not quite. It doesn't get to be the same thing until AFTER the
vibrational energy in the bonds is reemitted as
Most HF users want AM and ESSB (occupied bandwidth greater than required
for
communications quality - 2.6 to 2.8 KHz) banned. Unfortunately,
certain special interest groups continue to drive the debate.
Hi.
There are also a lot of radio amateurs that are concerned about the fact
that
I am surprised to hear that people don't like the extra bandwidth in the
audio response in the K3.
For me I have been reluctant to check into a regular rag chew net until I
could have some extra low frequency response. I knew that the K3 wouldn't
measure up and I didn't want the K3 to be seen
] On Behalf Of
Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedy
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 2:37 PM
To: Elecraft Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Bass in audio is good
Ian J Maude [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good idea, give them 5kHz :-)
Sorry, I could not resist!
I would have thought that the use of ESSB
More Bass on my fish stringer, is better.
John
k7up
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
Hi Joe,
I don't run ESSB here BUT...I prefer the revised K3 firmware as it now is.
Apparently many others feel the same based on responses in this thread.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion and the rest of us to ours as
well.
73 de N1LQ-Dave
In a message dated 5/5/08 5:14:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Many years ago Bell Labs
(and others) proved rather thoroughly that 2.4 to 2.6 KHz
was more than adequately for communications purposes. Their
tests were specifically in relation to toll grade audio for
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of n4lq
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 10:14 PM
To: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Bass in audio is good
Excellent job Mike! And if someone doesn't like bass all they
need do is
adjust the EQ. Now we have a choice.
Steve
I am surprised to hear that people don't like the extra bandwidth in the
audio response in the K3.
For me I have been reluctant to check into a regular rag chew net until I
could have some extra low frequency response. I knew that the K3 wouldn't
measure up and I didn't want the K3 to be seen in
We're not broadcasters, we're communicators.
That extra frequency response takes away from the spectrum available
for our fellow Amateurs.
Don't even get me started on that ESSB stuff...and why is AM even
LEGAL anymore, anyway?
73,
Steve NN4X
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 9:25 PM, Mike Scott [EMAIL
Amen, Mike.
Well Said.
73 de N1LQ-Dave
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
] Bass in audio is good
I am surprised to hear that people don't like the extra bandwidth in the
audio response in the K3.
For me I have been reluctant to check into a regular rag chew net until I
could have some extra low frequency response. I knew that the K3 wouldn't
measure up and I didn't want
26 matches
Mail list logo
