Hi Phil - This thread has been closed. Please see my earlier posting.
73,
Eric
elecraft.com
On 4/28/2014 1:41 PM, Phil Kane wrote:
On 4/27/2014 9:26 PM, David Cole wrote:
The legal issue will sort itself out. If ESSB does not have it's own
emission definition, (one accepted by the FCC), an
On 4/27/2014 9:26 PM, David Cole wrote:
> 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.
Both "conventional" SSB and ESSB have the same emission designator - A3J
- when used
If you understood that if you have 3.0 kHz of IF and clip off some of the
lows and some of the highs from the audio. It's not the same as only having
2.3 kHz of IF.
Keith
--
View this message in context:
http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Is-there-a-reason-the-receive-is-so-Skinny-tp758797
Gentlemen,
This thread is now closed.
I apologize for not stepping in earlier, I was off-line most of the weekend.
In general, please do not argue on the Elecraft list pro/con about various
emission modes like ESSB, CW vs no-code, QRP vs QRO, Contesting etc and their
appropriateness to amateu
Of course it is.
If you would understand that SSB is simply audio mixed up to R-F, you would not
have this mistaken idea. We normally do it in two steps, audio to I-F, I-F to
R-F, but that's all it is, a frequency conversion.
Certainly, if you take a 2 KHz band of audio frequencies and run t
STOP IT !!
On Apr 27, 2014, at 11:11 PM, mikerodgerske5gbc--- via Elecraft
wrote:
> While I do not endorse ESSB, it seems to me the dogs were let loose almost
> immediately.
>
> Doesn't this go against list guidelines?
>
> I don't understand why Eric let this go on.
>
> 73
> Mike R
>
> C
While I do not endorse ESSB, it seems to me the dogs were let loose almost
immediately.
Doesn't this go against list guidelines?
I don't understand why Eric let this go on.
73
Mike R
Check out the QRZ app
__
Elecraft mailing list
Hom
If one wants to devolve into international law (treaty), ITU defines
"commercial quality" telephony as 300 - 3000 Hz and defines "Sound
Broadcasting" as "between 4,000 and 10,000 (Hz) depending on the
quality desired". See: http://life.itu.ch/radioclub/rr/ap01.htm.
The USA includes that definiti
Hi Mike,
I beg to differ on that, the slow transmissions have a valid reason to
be so slow, they are working statistics to make a contact with the
lowest power possible... Does ESSB take less power? Does it allow for
very weak signals reception... No...
It is there because someone thinks it
Joe,
You have answered a question that myself and another ham in my area have
been wondering about... Why are we starting to see the other sideband
in some signals... THANK YOU!
--
Thanks and 73's,
For equipment, and software setups and reviews see:
www.nk7z.net
for MixW support see;
http://gro
Milverton,
Again, respectfully I submit that you are trying to shift the subject
off of ESSB, to anywhere else now.
Joe is not talking about Contesting, he is talking about ESSB.
--
Thanks and 73's,
For equipment, and software setups and reviews see:
www.nk7z.net
for MixW support see;
http://g
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 an
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
I've seen far more boring ones, Wes. At least this
guy has a dog and knows Cobal ... and has an
admirable profit motive :-)
73, Phil
On 4/27/14, 7:43 PM, Wes (N7WS) wrote:
So what digital mode do you think is "best"?
PSK-31 maybe, where the proponents mistakenly
believe that you don't need
Cutting the bandwidth of the audio going into the modulator is
indistinguishable from narrowing the bandwidth after the modulator.
If you don't believe that run a 1/3 octave EQ (so you have finer
control) between the mic and the input of the K3.
Of course, you can always install an INRAD 2.1 KHz
o:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of GRANT
YOUNGMAN
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 10:56 PM
To: 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
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 be
You know how to bait a guy. But there is more info in the made up QSO than
there is in the Elecraft SSB net for the whole 2014. Just saying.
Keith
PSK-31 maybe, where the proponents mistakenly believe that you don't need
decent
antennas or more than 10W to send brag files that put a norma
So what digital mode do you think is "best"?
PSK-31 maybe, where the proponents mistakenly believe that you don't need decent
antennas or more than 10W to send brag files that put a normal human being to
sleep?
"Hello my good friend Wes. It is a pleasure to QSO you this first time. My
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
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
conte
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
--
View this message in context:
http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Is-there-a-reason-the-receive-is-so-Skinny-tp75879
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 ca
> 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
Joe,
You of all people should know it's not the same as actually narrowing the
IF.
You should try both and compare.
Keith
If you use K9YC's suggested EQ you will be very close to 2.3/2.4 KHz
audio - particularly if 400 and 3200 are set to -16 dB. Try it ...
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On
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!
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
modifyin
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 b
The original post mentioned play back of recorded audio.
Now thats about as difficult to get right as i can think of.
I am not going to preach but, the effort is not worth it as the audio
cannot be duplicated perfectly. Pretty much a waste of time when you
consider setting up the receive and tran
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
On 4/27/2014 3:44 PM, XE3/K5ENS via Elecraft wrote:
> RTTY is an old outdated digital mode and severs only one thing these days.
> Contesting.
Folks say the same thing about CW. But if it's not broke, don't fix it.
That's what ham radio is all about.
--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane (same call sinc
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 i
If you use K9YC's suggested EQ you will be very close to 2.3/2.4 KHz
audio - particularly if 400 and 3200 are set to -16 dB. Try it ...
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 4/27/2014 7:41 PM, XE3/K5ENS via Elecraft wrote:
I've been asking for the ability to narrow the transmit bandwidth on the K3
for y
Keith,
Respectfully, I think you missed an important part of Joe's post. The
rules state-- that for the mode used, not the least broad mode, nor the
narrowest mode possible, but for the mode being used...
97.307(a):
No amateur station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth
than necessary for t
I've been asking for the ability to narrow the transmit bandwidth on the K3
for years. That would make a better contest radio.
But alas all I hear is it's on the list.
Keith
A friend of mine has a flex and can vary his transmitter BW
we ran some tests
and as I told Dick,, if ur gonna ch
CW is an old outdated digital mode, one that is usually spoken of with
great reverence by those who practice it.
AM is an outdated voice mode but I get why people still use AM.
Don't know why I have a key or a microphone for my KX3, I greatly prefer
keyboard modes.
I have the deepest respect
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" 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 b
A friend of mine has a flex and can vary his transmitter BW
we ran some tests
and as I told Dick,, if ur gonna chase DX as you narrow your
signal to 2 K or so with the same mike gain etc really gives you punch
with better average power but no increase in distortion,, well not much
observing it on
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 w
Only because of the need for speed not because it's the best digital mode.
Keith
--
View this message in context:
http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Is-there-a-reason-the-receive-is-so-Skinny-tp7587977p7588011.html
Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
__
It's also the most popular digital mode for DXing and still provides
better S/N under weak signal conditions than all but some modulation
methods with heavy redundancy/error correction.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 4/27/2014 6:44 PM, XE3/K5ENS via Elecraft wrote:
RTTY is an old outdated digital m
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: (may be snipped)
On 4/27/2014 3:44 PM, XE3/K5ENS via Elecraft wrote:
RTTY is an old outdated digital mode and severs only one thing these days.
Contesting.
REPLY:
Did you forget DXing? Nearly all DXPeditions, if they operate digital at
all, choose RTTY as their onl
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
OTOH. Last I checked my K3 can be set to transmit ESSB 4.0Khz wide.
But it can't be set to transmit SSB at 2.3khz wide.
Keith
--
View this message in context:
http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Is-there-a-reason-the-receive-is-so-Skinny-tp7587977p7588007.html
Sent from the Elecraft mailing
RTTY is an old outdated digital mode and severs only one thing these days.
Contesting.
Keith
--
View this message in context:
http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Is-there-a-reason-the-receive-is-so-Skinny-tp7587977p7588006.html
Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
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 defi
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, recordi
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
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
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
use
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 g
> 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 out
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/ne
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 co
?
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 worr
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, riese-k3...@juno.com wrote:
T
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 1
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 t
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
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 ar
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
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
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 w
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 band
Which radio? Should have been in the subject line but no mention in body
either. I suspect KX3?
73
Mike R
Check out the QRZ app
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.n
The K3 receives perfectly well all the way to 4 KHz (200 - 4200,
100 - 4100, 50 - 4050 [if you can stand the growl]) as long as one has
a suitably wide roofing filter. I regularly see 100 to 4100 Hz in data
modes using the FM roofer (I did not bother with a 6 KHz filter). The
response is easil
66 matches
Mail list logo
