The same, perhaps not, but wouldn't intelligibility decrease as the
quality degrades?
Joe M.
nj902 wrote:
>
> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH wrote:
>
> "I would agree with the quality issues, but does that really equate to
> unintelligibility on any significant scale?"
>
> ---
N. Just saying Murphy is on the list: "If there is a topic you are
interested in, it will come up just as you get busy with something else."
Joe M.
wb6dgn wrote:
>
> "We were waiting for you to get busy with something else. :-P"
>
> Are you trying to tell me I was hogging the board? Sorry
On 8/28/2010 7:54 AM, nj902 wrote:
>
> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
> " 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 demodul
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH wrote:
"I would agree with the quality issues, but does that really equate to
unintelligibility on any significant scale?"
-
Use of the term 'quality' is based on "Delivered Audi
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
" 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)"
--
And there is the issue of PL tone. Keep dropping the modulation level and
decoding becomes tougher, at least with boards like ComSpec.
Chuck
WB2EDV
- Original Message -
From: "wb6dgn"
To:
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 11:43 PM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Narrowband
"We were waiting for you to get busy with something else. :-P"
Are you trying to tell me I was hogging the board? Sorry, I'll behave!
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH wrote:
>
> We were waiting for you to get busy with something else. :-P
>
> Joe M.
>
> wb6dgn wrote:
> > Hey, gu
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
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" wrote:
>
> Also, wouldn't Carson
Also, wouldn't Carson's rule mitigate that characteristic?
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, 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 P
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 reduce
Matthew,
Can you direct me to some online discussions regarding this? I would like to
read more about it.
Tom
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
> On 8/27/2010 8:18 PM, wb6dgn wrote:
> >
> > If you reduce the modulation without reducing the receiver bandwidth, th
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 recei
Might add, I think +-1kC would be doable but would be starting to get expensive
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "wb6dgn" wrote:
>
> OK. But with that kind of "micro" modulation, you're going to be dealing
> with problems more difficult to solve than frequency stability, though I
> agr
OK. But with that kind of "micro" modulation, you're going to be dealing with
problems more difficult to solve than frequency stability, though I agree that
would be one of them.
Tom
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, DCFluX wrote:
>
> I was talking about 1kHz and 100 Hz deviation, not 2
"And I don't think that knowing a repeater's tail signal strength doesn't
change is an apples to apples comparison."
You're right, it's not. It's all about signal:noise and a squelch tail has no
signal!
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "larynl2" wrote:
>
> This has always interested
I was talking about 1kHz and 100 Hz deviation, not 2.5kHz.
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:30 PM, wb6dgn wrote:
> "As receiver bandwidth narrows, higher frequency stability is required.
> Handhelds with ovenized reference oscillators are not very practical."
>
> TCXOs are more than adequate to do the
"However, if you reduce the modulation and, at the same time, reduce
the receiver bandwidth and audio recovery..."
Should be: However, if you reduce the modulation and, at the same time, reduce
the receiver bandwidth and INCREASE audio recovery...
Gettin' ahead of myself!
--- In Repeater-Bui
"As receiver bandwidth narrows, higher frequency stability is required.
Handhelds with ovenized reference oscillators are not very practical."
TCXOs are more than adequate to do the job. Typical frequency stability for a
+-5.0kC system is 5ppm. TCXOs of 0.5ppm are common and not terribly expe
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 am
20 matches
Mail list logo
