Hi fidelity SSB bandwith [Archive]

K3VR

02-27-2007, 10:10 PM

Ok guys, here's what you're not able to hear, unless you have a radio with the ability to detect what some of the ESSB and AM experimenters are doing. Use a good pair of headphones or good speakers. The download is 2.3 MB and will demonstrate what wider filters sound like.

Bandwidth Demonstration (http://www.ve7kfm.com/bw.mp3)

I've found that during periods of very poor propagation and weak signal work, the traditional Collins Radio SSB audio response (300 Hz~2.4 kHz) is sufficient, and sometimes preferable to wider bandwidths.

However, when rag-chewing, and when signal strengths are very good to excellent, wider#bandwidths are more pleasing to listen to. Wider bandwidths offer much better intelligibility and decreased listener fatigue.

Radio manufacturers have accommodated customer listening preferences with the following radios:

IC-756 ProIII
Ten-Tec Orion
Ten-Tec Omni 7
Kenwood TS-2000LE
Flex Radio SDR-1000

All of the radios above contain significantly wider filters than Dad's KWM-2.

A large diaphragm condenser microphone requires phantom power and equalization so it won't sound too bassy, or dull and lifeless, hence, the rack of audio equipment. Wider bandwidths have been around since Hams started using voice modes. The previously mentioned radios reflect the surge in ESSB popularity.

YMMV

For more information, read the White Paper at the link below.

Bandwidth and Speech (http://www.ve7kfm.com/Bandwidth%20and%20Speech.pdf)

.

WA9SVD

02-27-2007, 10:33 PM

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Feb. 27 2007,12:05)]Cut them a little slack. It's just another sub interest in AR that adds to the overall flavor. They pretty much stay within 3kHz bandwidth now unless the band is not occupied. And just remember that a full fidelity AM signal can occupy 8kHz bandwidth or more.

I love AM, but I try to keep my signal within 5kHz. BTW, if you're a SSB user you need to allow at least 4kHz between you and the AM carrier not to interfere. Best advice is to avoid 3880, 3885, 3890, 3725, and 3685 as these are AM watering holes in the SE.
Cut them some slack?

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree.

While it IS commendable that any and all of us SHOULD aspire to the best, cleanest signal, we have to remember the intent of Amateur Radio. And THAT is communication, not broadcasting.
One of the original reasons SSB was adopted and later accepted was that it (usually) limited bandwidth to the necessary frequencies required for voice transmissions, usually thought of as 300-3000 Hz. So with limited bandwidth, SSB signals would require less bandwidth than AM signals, which could be (often, but not always) 10 kHz wide or even more.
Enter many of the "NEW" HiFi operators, who on SSB boost the Bass AND treble of their audio, (sometimes bypassing or otherwise eliminating the bandwidth restricting filter elementd) so they sound "better."
The fact remains, that Amateur Radio is a COMMUNICATION medium, and NOT a "broadcast" quality outlet.

The "enhancements" brought about by "HiFi" proponents are usually at the expense of increased bandwidth, often to a seeming extreme. And (IMHO) they actually sound pretty awful to those of us that choose to use the traditional bandwidth filters on the receive end.

(More than once I've been told that I can't properly receive a station that's severely distorted because I'm not capable of receiving "enhanced" SSB, and I should get my equipment checked, as it's not "functioning" properly, with the proper filter bandwidth.)

Amateur Radio is about communication, not broadcast quality sound!

K3VR

02-27-2007, 11:22 PM

Quote[/b] ] WA9SVD wrote: "Amateur Radio is about communication, not broadcast quality sound!"

Actually Larry, this is what Amateur Radio is about:

§97.1 Basis and purpose

The rules and regulations in this Part are designed to provide an amateur radio service having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the following principles:

a. Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications.

b. Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.

c. Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communications and technical phases of the art.

d. Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts.

e. Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to enhance international goodwill.

.

ve2nsm

02-27-2007, 11:30 PM

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Feb. 27 2007,18:33)]Amateur Radio is about communication, not broadcast quality sound!
Amateur Radio is also about experimentation, more than plain communication.
If you want to communicate, buy a cell phone.

If the ESSB crowd wants to take 6KHz of bandwidth to enjoy their hobby, good for them! The AMers do.

If they do it while respecting their neighbours, fine with me.

wd0ct

02-28-2007, 12:27 AM

" Enter many of the "NEW" HiFi operators, who on SSB boost the Bass AND treble of their audio, (sometimes bypassing or otherwise eliminating the bandwidth restricting filter elementd) so they sound "better."

Google fletcher munson curves and you will see the reason for bass and treble boost.

Of course if you are listening at 2.4khz bandwidth you will not hear all of the audio.
Plenty of guys are doing essb right and some are still learning. No different than learning to run digital modes correctly.

wd0ct

02-28-2007, 12:33 AM

"Given that AM is still widely used, what possible reason(s) are there for producing a poor substitute via processed SSB which only serves to use excessive spectrum? "

It is just the opposite of your analogy. Essb is a great subsitute for am. Half the bandwidth, far less fading, and less power required.

KA4DPO

02-28-2007, 01:06 AM

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Feb. 27 2007,16:40)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Feb. 27 2007,11:56)]there is no sound technical reason for doing it. #I think it has more to do with peer envy like; My audio setup is better than yours kind of thing. #It's a lot like CBers with echo mikes and roger beeps.
Your claim just isn't true.

A lot depends on HOW you make your bandwidth wider.

Even a cursory study on the internet (think google and the search terms "intelligibility" and "frequency") will show that inclusions of frequencies up to 4500hz can add SIGNIFICANTLY to the intelligibility of audio in the presence of gaussian and other masking type noise. While it provides lesser gain, inclusion of frequencies up to 6000hz (usually with some kind of pre-emphasis) can assist significantly in discerning between sounds like "f" and "s" or "d" and "t".

So there are a LOT of *technical* reasons for modifying your audio.

Please note that unless you have modified your receiver or have a newer receiver with IF DSP that can pass an extended bandwidth of 4.5khz to 6khz, you'll never be able to adequately judge what the audio modifications accomplish. To you it will sound just like it always did - only wider.

tim ab0wr
To an old radio engineer increasing the bandwidth of an SSB signal seems counter to it's intended purpose. #

The fact is, you cannot have Hi fidelity audio without an increase in bandwidth, how much depends on how HI-FI you wish to go. #Back in the early 1960s Collins engineers settled on 2.3 Khz as the optimum bandwidth for SSB. #This seems to be a good tradeoff between bandwidth and intelligebility. #You can voice your opinion to the contrary but you won't convince me that there is any rationale for increasing the bandwidth of your signal. I agree that AM is a more suitable mode for such experiments.

Oh, I have a PRO III, is that modern enough or do you know something I don't?

N3JI

02-28-2007, 01:13 AM

It's good to see at least a few folks that don't "get it" accept that others' have the right to enjoy our privileges in different ways. I got bit first by the AM bug, then by the eSSB bug. I still enjoy both modes, along with contesting, etc, etc. I have found time & time again that a little more top end makes a big difference even in contesting/DX'ing mode. If you take the time to do some research, you'll see that the "magical" 3k BW is from 300-3300 Hz, far wider than most run; typically 300-2400 Hz, or 2100 Hz total BW. I have experimented quite a bit and found that when the going gets really tough, ~400-3400 Hz carefully EQ'ed & compressed (still 3k BW!!) cracks pileups and gets attention quite nicely.

I generally operate my audio in two modes -- "ragchew" (rich, mellow tones out to ~4 kHz) and "contest" (sharp, tight, & compressed, 400-3400 Hz). The biggest lesson is that there is no "one size fits all" audio. That's why Bob Heil makes his "DX Dream Machine" element, communications quality element, as well as a series of full range elements.

To the naysayers: Continue being negative about external processing if you must, but if approached with an open mind, a lot can be learned. And the audio rack can be used to emulate a whole drawer full of mics for every possible condition.

Joe, N3JI

EDIT: Feel free to look at my pic here on QRZ, as well as my website. I have put up with a lot flack from folks with nothing but negative things to say about what we do, hence the tone of some of my statements there. I stand by every single word, however.

W5HTW

02-28-2007, 01:25 AM

Quote[/b] (ve2nsm @ Feb. 27 2007,16:30)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Feb. 27 2007,18:33)]Amateur Radio is about communication, not broadcast quality sound!
Amateur Radio is also about experimentation, more than plain communication.
If you want to communicate, buy a cell phone.

If the ESSB crowd wants to take 6KHz of bandwidth to enjoy their hobby, good for them! The AMers do.

If they do it while respecting their neighbours, fine with me.
I am not sure I agree that "experimentation" is valid when it is simply converting decades old technology for use on the ham band. That's a bit like trying to invent an internal combustion engine that could burn gasoline.

Experimenting with methods of producing hi-fi signals in an ever-narrowing bandwidth might be worth the effort. But it is a bit (or a lot!) misleading when amateurs claim to be experimenting, but are actually using commercial technology that has been around for 40 years or more.

It's kind of like all the hue and cry about "developing" digital modes. Nah, it's more "using" digital modes that have been around for decades.

Example: I was using narrow-shift (85 hertz) AFSK in 1964, but not on ham bands.

Example: APRS has been around since the very early 1980s in government use.

We are not on the leading edge; we are on the trailing edge. ESSB fits that category. Hi-Fi has been around since the mid 1950s. And overseas news and sports feeds were done in good fidelity SSB back in the 1960s. It ain't new!

But then, I have to admit, I like CW!! Nothing new to invent there, either.

kc4ylv

02-28-2007, 01:34 AM

It's my personal, opinion that those most obsessed with having broadcast-quality audio have very the least interest in true two-way amateur communication. They all want to play broadcaster - witness the 75 meter "brick on PTT" roundtables.

Flattening your EQ and adding compression is one thing. Running 6kc bandwidth with a condenser mic so hot I can hear your teeth whistle is another.

K7JEM

02-28-2007, 01:53 AM

You can experiment with any mode, no matter how old. You can experiment with FM, AM, CW, ESSB, or a digital mode. The mode doesn't have to be new or "cutting edge" to qualify as experimentation. There are people who experiment with black powder rifles and cannons. Others experiment with black and white film or tube type amplifiers.

I have not used essb, but I don't begrudge anyone using it, unless the band is just totally crowded. Even then, it is no worse than AM when properly set up. The problem seems to be with those that are not properly set up.

Joe

N5FOG

02-28-2007, 02:30 AM

Quote[/b] (kc4ylv @ Feb. 26 2007,20:34)]Flattening your EQ and adding compression is one thing. Running 6kc bandwidth with a condenser mic so hot I can hear your teeth whistle is another.
Sounds like the guy I was listeing to on 75 earlier, his audio was so hot I could hear every snap and pop of his desk chair and every time he took a breath between words it was as loud if not louder than his voice.

FOG

KC0OFZ

02-28-2007, 02:47 AM

Quote[/b] (Kc5fog @ Feb. 27 2007,19:30)]Quote[/b] (kc4ylv @ Feb. 26 2007,20:34)]Flattening your EQ and adding compression is one thing. Running 6kc bandwidth with a condenser mic so hot I can hear your teeth whistle is another.
Sounds like the guy I was listeing to on 75 earlier, his audio was so hot I could hear every snap and pop of his desk chair and every time he took a breath between words it was as loud if not louder than his voice.

FOG
I myself love the "air cooled" mics. #I usually say I like to have people "blow" in my ear....they get the picture and adjust the mic. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

ab0wr

02-28-2007, 04:05 AM

Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Feb. 27 2007,18:06)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Feb. 27 2007,16:40)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Feb. 27 2007,11:56)]there is no sound technical reason for doing it. #I think it has more to do with peer envy like; My audio setup is better than yours kind of thing. #It's a lot like CBers with echo mikes and roger beeps.
Your claim just isn't true.

A lot depends on HOW you make your bandwidth wider.

Even a cursory study on the internet (think google and the search terms "intelligibility" and "frequency") will show that inclusions of frequencies up to 4500hz can add SIGNIFICANTLY to the intelligibility of audio in the presence of gaussian and other masking type noise. While it provides lesser gain, inclusion of frequencies up to 6000hz (usually with some kind of pre-emphasis) can assist significantly in discerning between sounds like "f" and "s" or "d" and "t".

So there are a LOT of *technical* reasons for modifying your audio.

Please note that unless you have modified your receiver or have a newer receiver with IF DSP that can pass an extended bandwidth of 4.5khz to 6khz, you'll never be able to adequately judge what the audio modifications accomplish. To you it will sound just like it always did - only wider.

tim ab0wr
To an old radio engineer increasing the bandwidth of an SSB signal seems counter to it's intended purpose. #

The fact is, you cannot have Hi fidelity audio without an increase in bandwidth, how much depends on how HI-FI you wish to go. #Back in the early 1960s Collins engineers settled on 2.3 Khz as the optimum bandwidth for SSB. #This seems to be a good tradeoff between bandwidth and intelligebility. #You can voice your opinion to the contrary but you won't convince me that there is any rationale for increasing the bandwidth of your signal. #I agree that AM is a more suitable mode for such experiments.

Oh, I have a PRO III, is that modern enough or do you know something I don't?
I got my EE degree about 34 years ago so I am an old engineer also.

The main reasons SSB was developed were not to give narrower bandwidths just for the sake of spectrum efficiency. The primary reasons were for amplifier efficiency (i.e. you didn't waste power amplifying a carrier and opposite sideband) and the narrower bandwidth also gave a boost to signal-to-noise ratios allowing lower amplifier powers to provide the same communications efficiency. The boost to spectrum efficiency was an unintended consequence.

Collins engineers were also heavily influenced by telephone engineering studies that showed 2600hz as the "acceptable" (not the best - just the acceptable) upper frequency range the public would accept on the telephone network. This was a cost effective rolloff point for the essentially low-pass filter network that telephone distribution plant actually is while still providing adequate intelligibility - barely. It also fit well with bandwidths provided by the microphones that were cheap and widely available at the time.

The main point to take away from all this is that the design point of 2600 hz was basically determined by economics and not by a design goal of maximizing intelligibility.

I also know that there have been tremendous advances made in the study of hearing and intelligibility over just the past decade, primarily associated with studies involving the hearing impaired. Based on the new knowledge that has been developed over the past decade fire alarm annunciator specifications are being upgraded almost everywhere in this country to a frequency range of at least 6khz and in many places even higher than that. These systems are very representive of the environments amateurs encounter -- they must provide highly intelligible speech in high noise areas with lots of human voices as masking agents, just like amateur weak signal, DX, and emergency nets do.

I would be the first to agree that for casual ragchewing on an ad-hoc basis the lowest bandwidth possible is the proper choice. It maximizes both spectrum efficiency and interference mitigation. If someone doesn't understand something it is very easy to ask for a repeat or to pick up the actual meaning from context.

On the other hand, there most DEFINTELY are times when higher intelligibility is not only desired but is essential. Ask any NTS person relaying traffic by voice what the major cause of transcription errors is - you will find that it is not being able to fully distinguish what is being said -- especially in good conditions when not every letter is spelled out with phonetics. When someone is giving an address for a first responder to be dispatched to you really don't want Doog Street being heard as Toog Street. The only way for the amateur community to investigate and develop this functionality is to actually use it.

For a technical treatise on this subject I would suggest getting a copy of Single Sideband Systems and Circuits by Sabin and Schoenike. They cover it very well but even their methods of establishing intelligibility thresholds is just a little dated.

AM is certainly not a more suitable mode for such experiments - primarily for the reasons listed above. It is much more power hungry, is more susceptible to heterodyne interference, and is even wider than a high intelligibility SSB signal.

Casting this as "Hi-fi" and denigrating it as being unneeded on the ham bands is falling into the argumentative fallacies of "Supressed Evidence" and Dysphemism (choosing words to make the ordinary look offensive). While some involved in this activity do it just to sound better, many others are in it to actually improve intelligibility. We would do well to actually study their results rather than automatically caste aspersions on them based on economic decisions made over 50 years ago.

Many on forums like this lament the fact that amateur radio is not at the forefront of technological advance anymore. Here is an area that is ripe for research and experimentation and it is not an expensive proposition to do so if equpment bandwidths are available. If done in a reasonable manner with respect for interference mitigation it is wide open for old hams as well as new to investigate.

Your ProIII would be a very nice base to use for experimentation but many (including myself) don't have the financial means to obtain such equipment. That is why I am still working, and have been for over two years, to come up with simple, homebrew, standardized, repeatable designs for a wideband receivers and transmitters using crystal filters that can be used for such experimentation.

There is no way to convince someone that isn't willing to accept current research results. This is NOT a matter of opinion, it is a matter of *fact*. As I said before, do a google search on intelligibility or get a copy of Sabin's book.

tim ab0wr

n2vww

02-28-2007, 04:08 AM

§97.307 Emission standards.

(a) No amateur station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth than necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice.

(b) Emissions resulting from modulation must be confined to the band or segment available to the control operator. Emissions outside the necessary bandwidth must not cause splatter or keyclick interference to operations on adjacent frequencies.

© All spurious emissions from a station transmitter must be reduced to the greatest extent practicable. If any spurious emission, including chassis or power line radiation, causes harmful interference to the reception of another radio station, the licensee of the interfering amateur station is required to take steps to eliminate the interference, in accordance with good engineering practice.

(d) For transmitters installed after January 1, 2003, the mean power of any spurious emission from a station transmitter or external RF amplifier transmitting on a frequency below 30 MHz must be at least 43 dB below the mean power of the fundamental emission. For transmissions installed on or before January 1, 2003, the mean power of any spurious emission from a station transmitter or external RF power amplifier transmitting on a frequency below 30 MHz must not exceed 50 mW and must be at least 40 dB below the mean power of the fundamental emission. For a transmitter of mean power less than 5W installed on or before January 1, 2003, the attenuation must be at least 30 dB . A transmitter built before April 15, 1977, or first marketed before January 1, 1978, is exempt from this requirement.

(e) The mean power of any spurious emission from a station transmitter or external RF power amplifier transmitting on a frequency between 30-225 MHz must be at least 60 dB below the mean power of the fundamental. For a transmitter having a mean power of 25 W or less, the mean power of any spurious emission supplied to the antenna transmission line must not exceed 25 µW and must be at least 40 dB below the mean power of the fundamental emission, but need not be reduced below the power of 10 µW. A transmitter built before April 15, 1977, or first marketed before January 1, 1978, is exempt from this requirement.

(f) The following standards and limitations apply to transmissions on the frequencies specified in §97.305© of this Part.

(1) No angle-modulated emission may have a modulation index greater than 1 at the highest modulation frequency.

(2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission.

N2vww

ky5u

02-28-2007, 04:33 AM

This is one of those subjects that crack me up about Amateur Radio. If the band is crowded, cut your bandwidth back to 2.4 Khz. If the band is dead, WHO CARES if your SSB signal is 3-4kHz? Personally I think contesting is the dumbest thing since the no code license, but I understand alot of people like it. So be it. Get a good tube receiver or adjustable bandwidth solid state receiver and open it up to 8Khz into a good speaker. Amazing the quality and pleasant sound coming on SSB and AM both by some Amateurs. They aren't hurting anyone so more power to them. Ain't my cup of tea, but they sure sound good.

You want to wimper about something, look for the idiot with the processor on and the mike gain cracked wide open on SSB. Sounds like a flatulence fest in a windstorm over 500W PA system.

N3JI

02-28-2007, 04:34 AM

Quote[/b] (kc4ylv @ Feb. 27 2007,19:34)]It's my personal, opinion that those most obsessed with having broadcast-quality audio have very the least interest in true two-way amateur communication. They all want to play broadcaster - witness the 75 meter "brick on PTT" roundtables.

Flattening your EQ and adding compression is one thing. Running 6kc bandwidth with a condenser mic so hot I can hear your teeth whistle is another.
There are bad operators with stock mics plugged directly into the rig with "all-knobs-to-the-right-itus". Unfortunately, there are likely some that think the same techniques work with an audio rack. That's like saying "I heard a guy using PSK31 that was 500 Hz wide and wouldn't let off the key, therefore all users of PSK31 should be shunned".

Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? That's how I see your logic of lumping all of us that take pride in how we sound in the same group that overcompresses, overdrives, and overmodulates their rigs. Bad apples are bad apples, regardless of mode. The group I have been hanging out with includes narrow, wide, rack audio users, W2IHY users, stock mic users, and everything in between. It's here to stay. Get used to it.

Getting yourselves worked up over something that you can control by spinning the VFO or switching the on/off button doesn't seem worth it. That's what I do when I get tired of it for a while. If you don't like the roundtable style group, find a less formal group. Don't like listening to guys running 6k (if you can even listen that wide), keep turning the VFO.

Also, one part of your post really irks me (and it's not the first time I've heard it -- nothing personal). Amateur Radio encompasses many different types of people from many different backgrounds, religions, ethnicities, professions, economic statuses, etc., etc., etc. You don't get to choose what others want to talk about or for how long. If someone wants to have a Studebaker Bumper Collector Net, so be it. If you're not into Studebaker Bumpers, by all means, turn the VFO...

Sorry, that's how I see it. That said, I *DO* try to keep things a little more upbeat in my QSOs. The cookie cutter "Rig is... Antenna is... Weather is blah blah blah" does get old. I like to throw some curve balls out there, and yes, I do run across some folks that just can't handle more than the cookie cutter QSO. And that's fine too. There are a lot of people to talk to out there!! I haven't gotten to all of you yet...

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

N3JI

02-28-2007, 04:42 AM

Quote[/b] (n2vww @ Feb. 27 2007,22:08)]§97.307 Emission standards.

(a) No amateur station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth than necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice.

(b) Emissions resulting from modulation must be confined to the band or segment available to the control operator. Emissions outside the necessary bandwidth must not cause splatter or keyclick interference to operations on adjacent frequencies.

© All spurious emissions from a station transmitter must be reduced to the greatest extent practicable. If any spurious emission, including chassis or power line radiation, causes harmful interference to the reception of another radio station, the licensee of the interfering amateur station is required to take steps to eliminate the interference, in accordance with good engineering practice.

(d) For transmitters installed after January 1, 2003, the mean power of any spurious emission from a station transmitter or external RF amplifier transmitting on a frequency below 30 MHz must be at least 43 dB below the mean power of the fundamental emission. For transmissions installed on or before January 1, 2003, the mean power of any spurious emission from a station transmitter or external RF power amplifier transmitting on a frequency below 30 MHz must not exceed 50 mW and must be at least 40 dB below the mean power of the fundamental emission. For a transmitter of mean power less than 5W installed on or before January 1, 2003, the attenuation must be at least 30 dB . A transmitter built before April 15, 1977, or first marketed before January 1, 1978, is exempt from this requirement.

(e) The mean power of any spurious emission from a station transmitter or external RF power amplifier transmitting on a frequency between 30-225 MHz must be at least 60 dB below the mean power of the fundamental. For a transmitter having a mean power of 25 W or less, the mean power of any spurious emission supplied to the antenna transmission line must not exceed 25 µW and must be at least 40 dB below the mean power of the fundamental emission, but need not be reduced below the power of 10 µW. A transmitter built before April 15, 1977, or first marketed before January 1, 1978, is exempt from this requirement.

(f) The following standards and limitations apply to transmissions on the frequencies specified in §97.305© of this Part.

(1) No angle-modulated emission may have a modulation index greater than 1 at the highest modulation frequency.

(2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission.

N2vww
My 4.2 kHz SSB signal meets these requirements by a long shot. See the spectrum plots of my signal on my website if you doubt me.

Quote that section all you like -- 4, 6, 8 kHz, or even wider SSB is legal, conditions permitting. The FCC had the chance to incorporate the ARRL's 3.5 kHz @ -26dB SSB requirement and they told them to stick it where the sun don't shine...

Joe

N3JI

02-28-2007, 04:44 AM

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Feb. 27 2007,22:33)]
///SNIP///

You want to wimper about something, look for the idiot with the processor on and the mike gain cracked wide open on SSB. Sounds like a flatulence fest in a windstorm over 500W PA system.
Couldn't agree more, Charlie...

N6WK

02-28-2007, 05:12 AM

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Feb. 27 2007,20:03)]Don't know who you mean; you might as well reference a callsign so we can all know who you're talking about.

"Hi fi" SSB actually can sound very good and needn't occupy excessive bandwidth, when it's done properly. Whether you can actually hear any improvement in "fidelity" when the transmitting station implements such enhancements has a lot to do with your particular receiver.

Unfortunately, for every station who's done this well, there seems to be more than one who has not, and sounds like crap. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

WB2WIK/6
I agree Steve.
I have heard some ESB signals that sound VERY good, but for every GOOD one, there appears to be Three or four that are excessivley wide and sound like CRAP.
I listened to one today around 14.180 that was almost 15kc wide. I knew he was there even though I was 15 kc above him and he wasn't even that strong here. I used to mention it to the guys that were really wide, but they get so Defensive, that I just spin the dial and leave it to someone else.
I had a simular incident last year with a guy up in Washington that had just bought a 7800. His signal was horrible.He was NOT using ESSB, I called him right after a DX pileup and mentioned that his audio was a bit wide and distorted. He Attacked me on the air. Said us "California Stations needed to mind our own business and stay in California " and that his radio Cost $ 10,000 dollars and that he worked the DX station 1 call before me. I responded that my $ 1500 dollar Radio sounded better and worked the DX only one call after him and that he was 1500 miles closer to it then me. His response was " Give me a break!" ( Sarcasticlly )
I felt pretty darn good at that point. .
I must confess though, I heard him on today and his audio sounds much better. He must have figured out how to use his 7800... Finally ! Thank God for the rest of us. hi hi..
Now if we could get the Excessivley wide ESSB ops to correct their faults, it would be good for everyone. If the band isn't crowded, let them have as much space as they need, but that should be their learning time to be able to get it right and Narrow their bandwidth. IMHO
Actually, If they really want a wide signal, why not just use AM ?? ( sarcasim) I always thought that the purpose of SSB was to use only half the Bandwidth for communications .

Gordon

wa3vjb

02-28-2007, 09:45 AM

The original posting struck me as a troll.
But, let's say the person had a serious rhetorical question in there.

On what basis do you, or can anyone, validate an activity on the ham bands?

Contesting, take one example cited in this thread, consumes enormous amounts of bandwidth, and the point of the activity is no less legitimate.

When I hear a slam against a group I try to figure out where it's coming from. In this case, we see the slam expanded to cover other groups too, and it reaches a point where you have to say wait a minute --

EVERYTHING on our bands is non-essential communications. NONE of it "deserves" spectrum or is somehow more worthy than the next guy's area of interest. It is incorrect to try to justify your place on the band based on narrower, or wider, bandwidth.

So what we are left with is the basic Part 97 rules framework that permits all these specialties and mainstream communications types. If the signal is technically clean and there is no deliberate interference, the activity as a whole is as legitimate as contesting, DXing, "digital" and anything else you can name.

If you want to lodge a complaint about a dirty signal, then fine, the rules provide enforcement mechanisms and I hope you will pursue a citation. Just make sure your perspective would include the excited contester leaning into the microphone, splattering AND interfering with bystanders who don't wish to participate.

That's where painting with a broad brush makes sense.

Paul/VJB

N3JI

02-28-2007, 01:08 PM

Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ Feb. 28 2007,03:45)]The original posting struck me as a troll.
But, let's say the person had a serious rhetorical question in there.

On what basis do you, or can anyone, validate an activity on the ham bands?

Contesting, take one example cited in this thread, consumes enormous amounts of bandwidth, and the point of the activity is no less legitimate.

When I hear a slam against a group I try to figure out where it's coming from. In this case, we see the slam expanded to cover other groups too, and it reaches a point where you have to say wait a minute --

EVERYTHING on our bands is non-essential communications. NONE of it "deserves" spectrum or is somehow more worthy than the next guy's area of interest. It is incorrect to try to justify your place on the band based on narrower, or wider, bandwidth.

So what we are left with is the basic Part 97 rules framework that permits all these specialties and mainstream communications types. If the signal is technically clean and there is no deliberate interference, the activity as a whole is as legitimate as contesting, DXing, "digital" and anything else you can name.

If you want to lodge a complaint about a dirty signal, then fine, the rules provide enforcement mechanisms and I hope you will pursue a citation. Just make sure your perspective would include the excited contester leaning into the microphone, splattering AND interfering with bystanders who don't wish to participate.

That's where painting with a broad brush makes sense.

Paul/VJB
Well said, Paul. Emergency communications aside, no other Amateur gets preferential access to our bands. It's time some of these curmudgeons get off their pedestals and join the rest of us on Earth...

Joe, N3JI

N3JI

02-28-2007, 01:15 PM

Quote[/b] (N6WK @ Feb. 27 2007,23:12)]///SNIP///

Now if we could get the Excessivley wide ESSB ops to correct their faults, it would be good for everyone. If the band isn't crowded, let them have as much space as they need, but that should be their learning time to be able to get it right and Narrow their bandwidth. IMHO
Actually, If they really want a wide signal, why not just use AM ?? I always thought that the purpose of SSB was to use only half the Bandwidth for communications .

Gordon
Gordon,
I hate to put it this way, but you're preaching that the eSSB'er should use less BW, right? Why then would you tell us to use twice BW on AM that we'd be using with the same audio BW on SSB? If I'm using 4 kHz of audio BW on SSB, the same quality of transmission would take 8 kHz on AM.

Why would you want that? eSSB'ers don't want *wide* signals. What we seek is enough audio BW so that what we say can clearly be heard with enough clarity in the highs and enough lows to sound real, not like a pinched up duck.

Maybe you should do some research on what eSSB really is before you post.

Joe, N3JI

N9WB

02-28-2007, 01:23 PM

I shudder when I hear people listening to music over the disgustingly small speakers in cell phone. But when we have a society of people, who think cell phone music is cool, don’t expect them to even be able to spell fidelity.

The FM radio in their garage is spewing out distortion that goes unnoticed. It was never tuned to the station correctly. #These people will sit in front of a television watching green faces, gray grass and weak purple reds and never know the difference.

They would choose a velvet picture of Elvis on their wall instead of a Rembrandt original anytime.

Some people are audio, visually, and artistically ignorant. #Most of them will not allow themselves to be awakened from their bliss. Very few will venture from the safety of their box. They are more than willing to accept and defend mediocrity. #Expanding and improving transmission quality is folly to them.

If these people take communicating with minimum bandwidth so literally, why don’t they run 1 to 1.5 kHz? Basic voice communications can be carried on at this bandwidth. #Who decided that it is acceptable for them to run two times the minimum required bandwidth but it is wrong for us to run less than three times the minimum bare bones required bandwidth?

With ESSB comes greater frequency stability and cleaner amplifiers.

While there is nothing wrong with AM, a 5 kHz ESSB signals will sound the same as a 10 kHz AM signal.

What takes up more bandwidth, 3-2.5 kHz wide QSOs involving two people each or 1-5 kHz QSO involving 6 people?

Within the next decade this argument will be a moot point. Digital voice transmissions will easily provide an analogue bandwidth of 10 kHz with an occupied bandwidth of 2 kHz. But this conversion should take place naturally, not forced by ill-advised legislation. #

#
Vy 73, Walt N9WB

w5udx

02-28-2007, 01:52 PM

You know what I find so funny about guys that talk down to audio heads
and how stupid and cb like we all are?

I would love to see these super smart techy wecky hams setup a station
running audio gear. (correctly)

I would love to see them setup a studio mic, a full rack of gear,
mixer, cable it all out, (correctly) fight and fix the RF issues while
running legal limit from that station.

I would love to see them once they got all that done, get the audio
setup for their voice, (correctly) getting the right freqs. for their
voice and knowing how to set the freq/Q/level, for each and every
freq, set the gain between each and every piece of gear to control
distortion, set the thresholds/ratios/input/output gains on the
micpre/downward expanders/gates/compressors/processors.

I would love to see them after all that, putting the station on a lab
spec. station monitor (not a dam Icom spectrum scope 500 miles away)
and check out how clean they are, then make the hair pulling
corrections to get the cleanest signal they can from that station.

I would love to see them setup the computer/mini disc/DAT with all the
cables to and from the radio, so they could record and playback
stations on the air, fighting and fixing the RF/ground loops/hum
issues, getting the playback EQ setup (correctly) so they sound as
true as they can.

Once they get all those things done and on the air sounding, well, not
just good but someone rolling the dial, stops on their transmission
and says "DAM that guy sounds good, what is he doing to get that sound"

Then and only then, they can bitch and compare us to cbers and echo
mics with ego trips.

I'm sure they would say, (Why go thru all the trouble?)

All I can say is why do you enjoy anything you do in life?

If you don't try and make it your own, try to make it better, you
might as well give up and become a contesting queer!!! 5-9 5-9 your
5-9 again, again, your 5-9 next, I've got to win the contest to get a
cert. that says I'm better than the rest, Who has the ego trip?

w5udx

n2vww

02-28-2007, 02:28 PM

From Part 97

(2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission.

n2vww

N3JI

02-28-2007, 02:38 PM

Quote[/b] (n2vww @ Feb. 28 2007,08:28)]From Part 97

(2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission.

n2vww
What's the point of this one??

"No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth..." This is a standard set for data transmissions or ISB multiplexed voice/image transmissions. Are you implying this somehow applies to SSB (phone) transmissions??

ky5u

02-28-2007, 03:04 PM

Quote[/b] (n2vww @ Feb. 28 2007,07:28)]From Part 97

(2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission.

n2vww
Hey Skeezix...your rule does not apply. You might as well be posting the parking regulations at the UN. LMAO!

N3JI

02-28-2007, 03:08 PM

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Feb. 28 2007,09:04)]Hey Skeezix...your rule does not apply. You might as well be posting the parking regulations at the UN. LMAO!
Hey Charlie -- What the hell is a "Skeezix"?? I gotta admit, that's a new one on me..

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

KA4DPO

02-28-2007, 03:22 PM

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Feb. 27 2007,23:05)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Feb. 27 2007,18:06)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Feb. 27 2007,16:40)][quote=KA4DPO,Feb. 27 2007,11:56]there is no sound technical reason for doing it. #I think it has more to do with peer envy like; My audio setup is better than yours kind of thing. #It's a lot like CBers with echo mikes and roger beeps.
Your claim just isn't true.

tim ab0wr
To an old radio engineer increasing the bandwidth of an SSB signal seems counter to it's intended purpose. #

I got my EE degree about 34 years ago so I am an old engineer also.

tim ab0wr
No argument regarding the reasons behind the development of SSB as a more power efficient mode.

So based on what you said the holy grail of such experimentation should be in attempting to get maximum speech intelligebility in the narrowest possible bandwidth. #I give credit to anyone who can improve signal effectiveness or efficiency either through thoughtful transmitter modification or by the application of DSP algorythms to that end. #I think we can agree on that.

I can not condone anyone that splatters 3 KCs on either side of center and has such poor carrier supression that they may as well be running AM. #I also think you would agree.

One last thing, I got my EE 31 years ago, you're old.. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

N3JI

02-28-2007, 03:54 PM

Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Feb. 28 2007,09:22)]///SNIP///

I can not condone anyone that splatters 3 KCs on either side of center and has such poor carrier supression that they may as well be running AM. #I also think you would agree.

One last thing, I got my EE 31 years ago, you're old.. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
What you describe is not eSSB. #I'm not quite sure if that's what you're implying or not, but I want to make sure that's clear.

eSSB is about producing the cleanest, clearest signal you can get. #Yes, it also involves extended bandwidths ("extended" is what the "e" stands for, BTW) and tinkering with audio boxes, but the goal of a true eSSB'er is to have a signal that everyone wants to know how to emulate. #My TS-950SDX is just as clean at 4 kHz BW as an FT-1000MP at 3 kHz at +/- 10 kHz from center.

I was born 36 years ago -- you're both old.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

N6WK

02-28-2007, 04:47 PM

Quote[/b] (N3JI @ Feb. 28 2007,14:15)]Gordon,
I hate to put it this way, but you're preaching that the eSSB'er should use less BW, right? Why then would you tell us to use twice BW on AM that we'd be using with the same audio BW on SSB? If I'm using 4 kHz of audio BW on SSB, the same quality of transmission would take 8 kHz on AM.

Why would you want that? eSSB'ers don't want *wide* signals. What we seek is enough audio BW so that what we say can clearly be heard with enough clarity in the highs and enough lows to sound real, not like a pinched up duck.

Maybe you should do some research on what eSSB really is before you post.

Joe, N3JI
Joe,
I must admit that a PROPERLY set ESSB signal sounds very nice. My complaint is that way TOO many are not setup right and end up causing a lot of Splatter which in turn makes the signal even wider.
I must ask, If you can make the communication using Voice and get it done with 2.7kc then why do you feel you need 4kc to do the same job ?
My comment of using AM was sarcasim !

Gordon

ky5u

02-28-2007, 04:55 PM

Quote[/b] (N3JI @ Feb. 28 2007,08:08)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Feb. 28 2007,09:04)]Hey Skeezix...your rule does not apply. You might as well be posting the parking regulations at the UN. LMAO!
Hey Charlie -- What the hell is a "Skeezix"?? I gotta admit, that's a new one on me..

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
A character from "Gasoline Alley" comic strip. He was left as a baby on the doorstep of one of the characters. It has come to mean an orphan, one who nobody wants.

WB2WIK

02-28-2007, 04:55 PM

I like the way some eSSB experimenters sound; they've done it well. Others haven't.

The boomy bass response almost always sounds terrible no matter who's talking and certainly adds no "readability" at all. Usually, it's the opposite.

My way of dealing with those who have screwed around with their modulation until I hate it is to simply not call them, and also not answer them if they call me.

Seems to work fine.

WB2WIK/6

n8yx

02-28-2007, 05:06 PM

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Feb. 28 2007,09:55)]Quote[/b] (N3JI @ Feb. 28 2007,08:08)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Feb. 28 2007,09:04)]Hey Skeezix...your rule does not apply. You might as well be posting the parking regulations at the UN. LMAO!
Hey Charlie -- What the hell is a "Skeezix"?? I gotta admit, that's a new one on me..

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
A character from "Gasoline Alley" comic strip. He was left as a baby on the doorstep of one of the characters. It has come to mean an orphan, one who nobody wants.
Also see Norman Mailer's "The Executioner's Song".

Very derogatory term in that particular sense ...

wa3vjb

02-28-2007, 05:18 PM

Quote[/b] ]My comment of using AM was sarcasim !

Gordon

I do not like your "sarcasim."

Why don't you insult contestors or some other group that desearves a wholesale kick in the butt.

huh-HA !

K3VR

02-28-2007, 07:12 PM

Ok, here's what you're not able to hear, unless you have a radio with the ability to detect what some of the ESSB and AM experimenters are doing. This is a very quick demo I threw together in a few minutes, so you can get a sense of what ESSB sounds like.

Use a good pair of headphones or good speakers to listen to this audio clip. The download is 2.3 MB and will demonstrate what wider (and narrower) filters sound like. I used the Flex Radio SDR-1000 filters to transmit speech. This is an actual on-the-air recording (into a dummy load) using USB.

I don't claim to be an audio guru; I'm just a guy who likes to listen to human speech using filters wider than 2.4 kHz from a 3" speaker. As I said before, YMMV.

Audio Demonstration (http://www.ve7kfm.com/bw.mp3)

KA4DPO

02-28-2007, 07:13 PM

Quote[/b] (N3JI @ Feb. 28 2007,10:54)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Feb. 28 2007,09:22)]///SNIP///

I can not condone anyone that splatters 3 KCs on either side of center and has such poor carrier supression that they may as well be running AM. #I also think you would agree.

One last thing, I got my EE 31 years ago, you're old.. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
What you describe is not eSSB. #I'm not quite sure if that's what you're implying or not, but I want to make sure that's clear.

eSSB is about producing the cleanest, clearest signal you can get. #Yes, it also involves extended bandwidths ("extended" is what the "e" stands for, BTW) and tinkering with audio boxes, but the goal of a true eSSB'er is to have a signal that everyone wants to know how to emulate. #My TS-950SDX is just as clean at 4 kHz BW as an FT-1000MP at 3 kHz at +/- 10 kHz from center.

I was born 36 years ago -- you're both old.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I'm well aware of ESSB and have heard some nice sounding signals on the air. When the audio envelope is correctly shaped the result can be very good. Unfortunately I have heard a substantial number of signals that are just overly processed with too much bass emphasis and terible distortion from overdriving the balanced modulator.

The most appropriate way to accomplish this is to use a high level doubly balanced modulator (mixer) followed by a sideband filter with appropriate bandwidth characteristics. This can be crystal, mechanical, of DSP but it is critical to preserve the fidelity of the modulating signal.

Most of the guys I hear just hook up a Behringer audio board into the Mod injection port on the rig and start cranking the EQ. That kind of works but is not the same as designing a transmit audio and modulator section specifically for the purpose.

Sorry.

K3VR

02-28-2007, 07:54 PM

Agreed. I know people with Pro III's and IC-7800's who crank a ton of bass into a 3 kHz filter and they sound very unnatural (bad) to me. I also know guys with modified MkV's who generate 350 Hz of audio on the unwanted sideband.

However, for every one of the guys (not using ESSB) using too much bass in a 3 kHz bandwidth, there are three guys operating in a 2.2 kHz bandwidth, with all knobs to the right, non-linear amplifiers, and tremendous distortion, stomping over others conversations like they weren't there.

Bottom line -- regardless of width and/or use of equalization, there are lots of poorly engineered stations around. One of the most infamous of these ops lives in Maine and uses (used?) a KWM-2. Haven't heard him much lately, ahem.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

.

wd0ct

02-28-2007, 08:23 PM

"I must ask, If you can make the communication using Voice and get it done with 2.7kc then why do you feel you need 4kc to do the same job ?"

Jeez Gordon, after all this and all the previous threads about essb that you have been involved in, you still ask this question.

Have you not read or comprehended anything in these discussions?

kn4ds

02-28-2007, 08:31 PM

Quote[/b] (K3VR @ Feb. 28 2007,14:54)]there are lots of poorly engineered stations around. One of the most infamous of these ops lives in Maine and uses (used?) a KWM-2. Haven't heard him much lately, ahem.
Awww, man, you just had to go and bring up that one.

ky5u

02-28-2007, 08:33 PM

Quote[/b] (wd0ct @ Feb. 28 2007,13:23)]"I must ask, If you can make the communication using Voice and get it done with 2.7kc then why do you feel you need 4kc to do the same job ?"

Jeez Gordon, after all this and all the previous threads about essb that you have been involved in, you still ask this question.

Have you not read or comprehended anything in these discussions?
With his hands over his ears and eyes, he's a free thinker!

wa3vjb

02-28-2007, 08:36 PM

Charlie, here's the thing --
narrow bandwidth = narrow mindwidth

Copy? Over over.

update:
I had to take a few stabs at it:
Quote[/b] ]"I must ask, If you can make the communication using Voice and get it done with 2.7kc then why do you feel you need 4kc to do the same job ?"

Pick one or more (all are true):

It's not the same job.

It's why people drive SUVs instead of the Prius.

Why suffer with space shuttle audio when there's room to sound normal.

Those will keep you busy.

N3JI

02-28-2007, 09:00 PM

Quote[/b] (N6WK @ Feb. 28 2007,10:47)]Joe,
#I must admit that a PROPERLY set ESSB signal sounds very nice. My complaint is that way TOO many are not setup right and end up causing a lot of Splatter which in turn makes the signal even wider.
I must ask, If you can make the communication using Voice and get it done with 2.7kc then why do you feel you need 4kc to do the same job ?
My comment of using AM was sarcasim !

Gordon
I sure would like to know where all these "for every one that's good, there are three that are bad" are at. #I hear an occasional overdone sig, but they sure seem to be the exception, not the rule. #Once again, I can prove to you that my 4k SSB signal is no worse at +/- 10 kHz of center than a <3k FT-1000. #I have the spec any shots to prove it. #And these are HP spectrum analyzers, not a "band scope".

The reason I choose to run 4k is because it does the job better. #I'm not saying 2.7k is bad. #There is no way to dispute the fact that increasing from 2.4 or 2.8 to 3.5 or 4k drastically improves copy. #I can hear the difference between a "P" sound from a "T", a "C" from a "Z", etc. #There really is no way to do that without the extra bandwidth. #In short, it's simple preference. #Part 97 allows it, most of the folks I hang out with on the air can hear it, and so can I. #The 950SDX will transmit at 4k stock, and listen at 6k.

And as has already been mentioned several times (and ignored), there are *FAR* more "splattering" stations on the air that *aren't* eSSB stations. #Just listen during a contest. #I have disproven the IMD issue with eSSB, there are no rules against it, and there's nothing morally or technically wrong with wanting to sound better than "good" on the air.

I think that about sums it up... # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

N3JI

02-28-2007, 09:18 PM

Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Feb. 28 2007,13:13)]///SNIP///
I'm well aware of ESSB and have heard some nice sounding signals on the air. #When the audio envelope is correctly shaped the result can be very good. #Unfortunately I have heard a substantial number of signals that are just overly processed with too much bass emphasis and terible distortion from overdriving the balanced modulator. #

The most appropriate way to accomplish this is to use a high level doubly balanced modulator (mixer) followed by a sideband filter with appropriate bandwidth characteristics. #This can be crystal, mechanical, of DSP but it is critical to preserve the fidelity of the modulating signal.

Most of the guys I hear just hook up a Behringer audio board into the Mod injection port on the rig and start cranking the EQ. #That kind of works but is not the same as designing a transmit audio and modulator section specifically for the purpose.

Sorry.
Well once again, I must set you straight. #My radio *has no balanced modulator*! #The parts were deleted from the board by Kenwood. #I feed my audio directly into the 950's DSP using the correct audio matching transformer and leveled properly using a custom resistor attenuator. #Audio goes into the DSP, and the first IF comes out. #No filter, no DBM. #Since nearly all rigs that are capable of eSSB are DSP rigs (my 950SDX, TS-870, Ten-Tec Jupiter/Orion, FlexRadio, etc.) the scenario you describe is most uncommon. #Part of being an eSSB'er is being self-aware of what kind of signal you're generating. #That's why I find it hard to believe the 3 or 4:1 bad to good ratio some of you are putting out there. #It's either that, or they're not true eSSB'ers. # They're guys that have plugged some boxes together and haven't taken the time to set everything up properly. #THAT'S the part that distinguishes an eSSB'er from an appliance operator...

w3oz

02-28-2007, 09:42 PM

This is really an old wheeze of a topic, been here talked our teeth out about it and the same old arguments keep coming up time and again. There is no use arguing with someone who has their mind set in one direction and will not even entertain that there may be some points in opposition that have some merit. #

I do not do 75 meters but understand there have been many audio guys going there lately now that 20 meters is dead in the evenings. I am an audio guy and play with it some. I am also a DXer (#1 ARRL Honor Roll) so I have opinions on both sides of the question. To my audio friends, please stay far away from the traditional DX windows on 75. When trying to work DX, sometimes the station can hardly be heard in the best of conditions and with splatter coming from an audio guy just chatting with his friends 2 states away, working the DX is made very much harder if not impossible. Please stay as far away as you can, and give some space and consideration to other parts of the hobby. Likewise, DXers when you call CQ/DX please consider others who will be effected by a large pile-up who are adjacent to where you are operating. This is just common courtesy and should not have to be even said. If someone is interfering with you, kindly ask them to move and if they will not then just find another frequency or go QRT. It is really not worth fighting about in the realm of other problems we have in the world.

ALSO PLEASE NOTE FOR YOUR EDUCATION. A lot of posters here on both sides of the question are making errors. ESSB stands for Extended Single Side Band, not Enhanced SSB. ESSB is a copyrighted term so please use it correctly. Extended as such means any SSB audio that has a total Bandwidth of over 3Khz. Full blown ESSB is around 6Khz. So saying you are using a rig like the ProIII does, in no way, meet the test of even the lowest rung of ESSB. I have never seen an Icom Pro of any flavor go anywhere near 3Khz. I am not bad mouthing the ProIII as it is my favorite rig and it can put out very good audio, just not ESSB audio.

ab0wr

02-28-2007, 09:46 PM

Quote[/b] (K3VR @ Feb. 28 2007,12:12)]Ok, here's what you're not able to hear, unless you have a radio with the ability to detect what some of the ESSB and AM experimenters are doing. This is a very quick demo I threw together in a few minutes, so you can get a sense of what ESSB sounds like.

Use a good pair of headphones or good speakers to listen to this audio clip. The download is 2.3 MB and will demonstrate what wider (and narrower) filters sound like. I used the Flex Radio SDR-1000 filters to transmit speech. This is an actual on-the-air recording (into a dummy load) using USB.

I don't claim to be an audio guru; I'm just a guy who likes to listen to human speech using filters wider than 2.4 kHz from a 3" speaker. As I said before, YMMV.

Audio Demonstration (http://www.ve7kfm.com/bw.mp3)
A very good demonstration!

Would it be possible to do a similar demonstration using 300hz as the bottom limit on all samples? I.e. 300-10k, 300-6k, 300-4k, 300-2.5k

I would be very interested in seeing how it impacts the intelligibility.

Based on my research, frequencies below 300hz shouldn't affect the intelligibility much but they certainly have a big impact on dynamic range and linearity of the amplifier chain.

tim ab0wr

N3JI

02-28-2007, 10:17 PM

Quote[/b] (K3VR @ Feb. 28 2007,13:12)]Ok, here's what you're not able to hear, unless you have a radio with the ability to detect what some of the ESSB and AM experimenters are doing. This is a very quick demo I threw together in a few minutes, so you can get a sense of what ESSB sounds like.

Use a good pair of headphones or good speakers to listen to this audio clip. The download is 2.3 MB and will demonstrate what wider (and narrower) filters sound like. I used the Flex Radio SDR-1000 filters to transmit speech. This is an actual on-the-air recording (into a dummy load) using USB.

I don't claim to be an audio guru; I'm just a guy who likes to listen to human speech using filters wider than 2.4 kHz from a 3" speaker. As I said before, YMMV.

Audio Demonstration (http://www.ve7kfm.com/bw.mp3)
Extremely well done! Thanks for putting your audio where our mouths have been!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I have done some similar clips, but nothing to that detail. Mostly because my 950 does ~4.2k max without overdriving the heck out of the top end.

Thanks again!

K3VR

02-28-2007, 11:05 PM

You're very welcome. Lots of guys can't hear the depth and detail of wider bandwidths because their filters are the limiting factor, so I thought maybe they'd like to hear the difference. Tim, I can send you a clip of whatever filter configuration you'd like to hear between 0 and 20,000 Hz with any cutoff you specify. Send an email to my qrz address with whatever you'd like to hear and I'll reply with an audio clip later tonight.

Brian

wd0ct

02-28-2007, 11:15 PM

"You're very welcome. Lots of guys can't hear the depth and detail of wider bandwidths because their filters are the limiting factor, so I thought maybe they'd like to hear the difference. "

Thanks Brian. I agree it was a damn good demo. My ears could notice very little difference down to 8Khz. From there on down it was obvious.

KA4DPO

03-01-2007, 04:46 AM

Quote[/b] (K3VR @ Feb. 28 2007,18:05)]You're very welcome. Lots of guys can't hear the depth and detail of wider bandwidths because their filters are the limiting factor, so I thought maybe they'd like to hear the difference. Tim, I can send you a clip of whatever filter configuration you'd like to hear between 0 and 20,000 Hz with any cutoff you specify. Send an email to my qrz address with whatever you'd like to hear and I'll reply with an audio clip later tonight.

Brian
Very well done demo Brian. Amazingly I understood every word at every test bandwidth. You also showed me that my PRO III doesn't sound too bad considering it's stock.

I really didn't hear any difference of enough significance to convince me that it would improve or change intelligebility at all. In fact, I like the narrower bandwidths better. So I have to conclude that that's not the purpose.

BTW I do have two radios capable of hearing out to 15KHZ and I hear a lot of lousy signals from the "audio guys".

Maybe you could try wide band CW, hey now there's an idea.. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

k4kyv

03-01-2007, 05:49 AM

Quote[/b] (ve2nsm @ Feb. 27 2007,23:30)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Feb. 27 2007,18:33)]Amateur Radio is about communication, not broadcast quality sound!
Amateur Radio is also about experimentation, more than plain communication.
If you want to communicate, buy a cell phone.

If the ESSB crowd wants to take 6KHz of bandwidth to enjoy their hobby, good for them! The AMers do.

If they do it while respecting their neighbours, fine with me.
With all the new voice spectrum now available, especially on 75/80 metres, "bandwidth" should not be a problem, especially since the Extra Class subbands have become within reach of just about anyone.

If the sole purpose of amateur radio is to "communicate" with the narrowest possible signal, then outlaw phone altogether and limit everyone to CW and PSK31.

But some of us may use SSB instead of CW or PSK31 because we prefer SSB.

By the same token, others may use eSSB because they prefer listening to a real human voice to the "space shuttle sound" of communications quality SSB.

Still others may use AM because we prefer it over SSB.

So who is to draw an arbitrary line and say that one person's preference (tin-can-audio SSB over CW) is OK, while another's preference (AM or eSSB over tin-can-audio SSB) is inappropriate for amateur radio?

Think of how many CW or PSK31 signals could occupy the bandwidth taken up by just one 2700~ wide SSB signal!

Just as we use variable bandwidth receivers to adjust for band conditions and congestion, we should likewise be able to use variable bandwidth transmitters. It's a matter of a variety of choice governed by good operating practice versus a one-size-fits-all restrictive approach.

The vast majority of "wide" phone signals result from the transmission of excessive spurious distortion products, not from the bandwidth of the transmitted audio.

wv6z

03-01-2007, 06:21 AM

Bwaaa Haaaa Haaaa!!! 75 meters! Okay here's a very basic observation.......

“Hi this is KU4MY, Tom, and I was wondering if you could give me an audio and signal report as I just picked up this new rig. Everything seems okay, but I wanted an opinion from someone besides myself and my headphones.”

“Hi Tom, sounds great and you are 30 dB over S9 here in *xxxxx*. What did you pick up, what are you running?”

“It’s a Yaesu FT-100D that I picked up as a back up or mobile rig, snagged it at a great price and it was apparently used for just that purpose, keeping an empty spot on a shelf occupied for #a few years with maybe only a month or two of actual use.”

“Oh, a 100D you say? What are you using as an equalizer for the audio and what kind of microphone are you using? Oh, are you running and amp?”

“No I just got it and it’s straight out of the box, hand mike, putting out about 85 watts or so on peaks. So you say it sounds okay then?”

“Oh no, it sounds kind of, hmmmmmm, tinny, yeah, that’s it, tinny, no real high or low emphasis, but maybe that’s because you’re pretty much running QRP. Maybe you should put your equalizer and Gold Line on it and bump it up to say one kw and then let’s see how it sounds, okay?”

Unidentified station pipes in, “Man why do these guys buy these crappy little radios like 100Ds, 857Ds and 706mkIIGs and come on here asking for damned radio checks?!?!”

“Okay thanks guys, glad to know it sounded great until you realized I was running a $300 mobile rig as a back up base, catch up with ya later and 73 #from KU4MY.”

Unidentified station says to the guy that was helping me out originally, “I just can’t believe the nerve of these losers.”

“Well, I thought it sounded okay myself”

“Yeah, right, man there is no way one of those little mud duck radios ever sounded worth a crap. Listen to me, what do you hear? THIS is quality audio.”

“Yeah, I guess you’re right, if your audio equipment isn’t at least as expensive as your rig and you aren’t running legal limit X 2, there’s really no sense in trying, huh?”

idiots
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

W1GUH

03-01-2007, 07:53 AM

I've seen no mention about another factor in hi-fi ssb, and that's the phase distortion introduced in the filter in the rx/tx signal chains. This is in addition to the distortion introduced as a by-product of the phase differences between the original modulated carrier and the receiver's bfo.

Is there any experimentation going on exploring this aspect of HiFi SSB?

I know that SSB heard over a cheap, filterless SW radio can sound really good (well, at least before it drifts). So, is anyone investigating SSB filters with reduced phase distortion.

An excellent example of a low phase distortion is in the TMC GSB-1. It uses an IF of 17 kc., and TMC went to great lengths to reduce the phase distortion. Listening to SSB through that piece of equipment is a joy! A GPR-90, by itself, is not as great an experience as one would expect, but add the GSB-1 and it's one of the more interesting listening devices.

Or, with SDR, one could develop an optimized filter...any work being done there?

Seems to me that this could be a fecund area to mess around with...one of the reasons that I'm very motivated to play around with an SDR.

On the other aspect, that of phase distortion introduced by the phase differences between the original carrier and the receiver's BFO...I always thought some sort of reduced, or maybe even vestigal (not sure I'm using that term right) carrier for the receiver to lock up on would be highly beneficial in improving the naturalness of the sound of an SSB signal. And you'd retain some of the efficiency of "real" SSB.

Oh...bandwidth issues seem moot with the current level of activity.

ab0wr

03-01-2007, 12:53 PM

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Mar. 01 2007,00:53)]I've seen no mention about another factor in hi-fi ssb, and that's the phase distortion introduced in the filter in the rx/tx signal chains. #This is in addition to the distortion introduced as a by-product of the phase differences between the original modulated carrier and the receiver's bfo.

Is there any experimentation going on exploring this aspect of HiFi SSB?

I know that SSB heard over a cheap, filterless SW radio can sound really good (well, at least before it drifts). #So, is anyone investigating SSB filters with reduced phase distortion.

An excellent example of a low phase distortion is in the TMC GSB-1. #It uses an IF of 17 kc., and TMC went to great lengths to reduce the phase distortion. #Listening to SSB through that piece of equipment is a joy! #A GPR-90, by itself, is not as great an experience as one would expect, but add the GSB-1 and it's one of the more interesting listening devices.

Or, with SDR, one could develop an optimized filter...any work being done there?

Seems to me that this could be a fecund area to mess around with...one of the reasons that I'm very motivated to play around with an SDR.

On the other aspect, that of phase distortion introduced by the phase differences between the original carrier and the receiver's BFO...I always thought some sort of reduced, or maybe even vestigal (not sure I'm using that term right) carrier for the receiver to lock up on would be highly beneficial in improving the naturalness of the sound of an SSB signal. #And you'd retain some of the efficiency of "real" SSB.

Oh...bandwidth issues seem moot with the current level of activity.
I don't know that having a BFO and signal out of phase is really considered "phase distortion". In the frequency domain this is nothing more than a frequency offset. It applies equally to every frequency contained in the received signal. It may cause a received signal to not sound tonally like the originating audio signal but within small limits it shouldn't affect the intelligibility very much.

Phase distortion in filters *is* true phase distortion in that it affects has different impacts on different frequencies in the signal bandwidth thus "distorting" the signal. In most filters I have seen, the biggest phase distortion occurs at the very edges of the filter. This is to be expected since it is where major changes are occuring in the transfer functions. If your filter is made larger than the signal bandwidth (not good for signal to noise ratio's but good for fidelity) you should have a good chance of minimizing phase distortion to levels that are not audible.

my two cents, anyway.

tim ab0wr

N3JI

03-01-2007, 12:56 PM

Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Feb. 28 2007,22:46)]Quote[/b] (K3VR @ Feb. 28 2007,18:05)]You're very welcome. Lots of guys can't hear the depth and detail of wider bandwidths because their filters are the limiting factor, so I thought maybe they'd like to hear the difference. Tim, I can send you a clip of whatever filter configuration you'd like to hear between 0 and 20,000 Hz with any cutoff you specify. Send an email to my qrz address with whatever you'd like to hear and I'll reply with an audio clip later tonight.

Brian
Very well done demo Brian. Amazingly I understood every word at every test bandwidth. You also showed me that my PRO III doesn't sound too bad considering it's stock.

I really didn't hear any difference of enough significance to convince me that it would improve or change intelligebility at all. In fact, I like the narrower bandwidths better. So I have to conclude that that's not the purpose.

BTW I do have two radios capable of hearing out to 15KHZ and I hear a lot of lousy signals from the "audio guys".

Maybe you could try wide band CW, hey now there's an idea.. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Typical response. "I didn't hear much difference". This was with zero noise or propagation distortion directly recorded within they guy's shack. Of course it's easier to copy that way. The difference between the last few bandwidths was NIGHT & DAY! If you can't hear that, then you definitely won't benefit from tinkering in eSSB. Either that, or you listened on a very poor set of speakers or headphones. Even between 4 or 5k down to <3k is a very substantial difference. Most agree that the 3-5k range substantially increases the clarity of the hard consonants, so when the rigs chop everything above ~2.9 off, it obviously removes those parts of speech.

None of us are saying the <3k is not understandable or sounds like crap. Any bandwidth can sound decent when the operator takes the time to think about what they sound like and put some effort into improving it. What we are saying is that extended bandwidths make speech sound much more natural sounding. I always say eSSB is like a fireside chat, where the more "normally" heard SSB is like a shouting match. Which is easier and less fatiguing to listen to? I (and others based on the comments I've heard) have been noticing that folks are starting to pay more attention to how they sound on the air, so the "shouting matches" seem to be lessening, except of course on DX pileups and contest weekends.

Joe, N3JI

W3MIV

03-01-2007, 01:16 PM

Goodness, what a cat fight this topic nearly always causes.

I have to agree with a post Charlie (4YO) made back on the first page of this fiasco:

To paraphrase: If the band is crowded, ESSB can be an irresponsible use of bandwidth; when there is plenty of open Hertz, who cares? If sounding like Vaughn Monroe on the air is your thang, what harm does it cause?

There may come a time when "legacy" modes like AM and other very wide modes may be deemed an undesirable luxury, but that time is not even visible on our horizon.

Want to bitch about wideband arrogance that we can do without? Take a look at PacTOR III and get your dander up with a purpose.

Visit this thread and let your blood pressure do some good:

Notice of Meeting (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=146653)

With my voice, people will beg me NOT to play with ESSB.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

WA9SVD

03-01-2007, 01:54 PM

While experimentation is laudable, the FCC rules state we are a COMMUNICATION Service, not a broadcast service. And they specify "COMMUNICATION QUALITY" SSB transmissions; not "broadcast" quality.
And while they did not specify or define "communication quality" at the outset, they pretty much defined it in the rules governing 60 Meters, where not just the FCC, but the NTIA specified the allowable bandwidth for SSB operation.
(Sorry, I don't have my rule book handy, or I'd cite that actual rule.)
But a HINT: It's not 4 kHz, it's not 8 kHz, and it's not 12 kHz...

N3JI

03-01-2007, 02:29 PM

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Mar. 01 2007,07:54)]While experimentation is laudable, the FCC rules state we are a COMMUNICATION Service, not a broadcast service. #And they specify "COMMUNICATION QUALITY" SSB transmissions; not "broadcast" quality.
# #And while they did not specify or define "communication quality" at the outset, they pretty much defined it in the rules governing 60 Meters, where not just the FCC, but the NTIA specified the allowable bandwidth for SSB operation.
# #(Sorry, I don't have my rule book handy, or I'd cite that actual rule.)
# #But a HINT: #It's not 4 kHz, it's not 8 kHz, and it's not 12 kHz...
"Broadcast quality" is certainly *not* 4 or 6 kHz! #9kHz on AM, and twice that on FM would be "Broadcast Quality".

If you want to start inferring a 2.8k BW from the way 60m is implemented, then let's take it to completion: USB only, specific channels, and no CW. #Of course it's a silly jump in logic to apply 60m rules to other bands -- they did that because of the way "channels" are used by official agencies. #This band was partially set up to facilitate communication between these agencies, therefore specific requirements are put in place to ensure compatibility and limit interference. #We have other rules in place to take care of these issues.

What you are asking for is tantamount to channelization. #Doing that would go against at least one of the reasons the Amateur Bands exists, and I would go as far as saying 4 of the 5. #Be careful what you ask for or the transformation of the Amateur Bands to CB will come true!

The bottom line is that the rules allow for any voice BW as deemed necessary by the operator for the conditions at hand. #Repeating myself here, the FCC had the chance to implement a 3.5k BW @ -26dB limit for SSB with the ARRL's proposal last year. #We all know which file that went into. #Hint: it's normally round and sits on the floor next to your desk.

N3JI

03-01-2007, 02:43 PM

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Mar. 01 2007,07:54)]///SNIP///
And they specify "COMMUNICATION QUALITY" SSB transmissions; not "broadcast" quality.
///SNIP///
BTW, please post the section & sub-part from Part 97 (or Part 2 for that matter) that specifies "Communication Quality" for SSB...

KA4DPO

03-01-2007, 03:12 PM

Quote[/b] (N3JI @ Feb. 28 2007,16:18)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Feb. 28 2007,13:13)]///SNIP///
I'm well aware of ESSB and have heard some nice sounding signals on the air. #

Well once again, I must set you straight. #THAT'S the part that distinguishes an eSSB'er from an appliance operator...
N3JI, I'm sure you're a nice guy who enjoys the hobby and you seem very passionate about voice quality experimentation. Having said that you might want to change your approach to these discussions just a bit since I'm a bit offended by one of your responses.

Saying things like " Once again I must set you straight" is a very provocative response. I've been a ham for more years than I care to count and a EE for 30, almost 31 years. I worked at Harris designing radio systems for 11 of those years so I don't think your going to set me straight on anything.

I am pretty familliar with Hilbert and Fourier transforms and the phase shift/vector summing method of generating DSB and SSB signals.

Please don't assume that because someone doesn't share your enthusiasm for wide band single sideband that they are an appliace operator, that's simply not true.

Enjoy the hobby and perhaps I'll hear you on the air sometime.

W3MIV

03-01-2007, 03:23 PM

Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Mar. 01 2007,10:12)]Please don't assume that because someone doesn't share your enthusiasm for wide band single sideband that they are an applia[n]ce operator, that's simply not true.
What's wrong with being an "appliance operator?"

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

K3VR

03-01-2007, 03:55 PM

Quote[/b] ]WA9SVD wrote: "While experimentation is laudable, the FCC rules state we are a COMMUNICATION Service, not a broadcast service. #And they specify "COMMUNICATION QUALITY" SSB transmissions; not "broadcast" quality."

Larry,

Broadcasting involves the transmission of non amateur radio related information to the public. We're not discussing broadcasting, we're discussing amateur radio. The FCC specifically encourages experimentation and flexibility in the amateur service. The rules do not specify a particular bandwidth for SSB or AM signals. Furthermore, in contrast to your claim, the rules have never specified "communication quality SSB transmissions." #

In fact, back in 2004, when the FCC was petitioned to limit AM and SSB bandwidth, [1] numerous comments were received by the FCC, with the majority opposed. In the Order, the FCC ruled as follows:

"We conclude that Petitioners’ request for an amendment #of our rules is inconsistent with the Commission’s objective of encouraging the experimental aspects of amateur radio service. The Petition also fails to demonstrate that a deviation from the Commission’s longstanding practice of allowing operating flexibility within the amateur service community -- is either
warranted or necessary."

Please, if you're going to pontificate, make an effort to know the rules and something about the subject matter at hand. Otherwise people may think you're a crackpot. Next, I suppose you'll be telling us you invented the internet and that global warming is caused by people!

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[1] See RM 10740 #Rulemaking under Part 97 of the Communications #Act of 1934, as amended to Establish Technical Standards for Certain Amateur Radio Telephony Transmissions, adopted November 24, 2004.

ab0wr

03-01-2007, 04:01 PM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Mar. 01 2007,08:23)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Mar. 01 2007,10:12)]Please don't assume that because someone doesn't share your enthusiasm for wide band single sideband that they are an applia[n]ce operator, that's simply not true.
What's wrong with being an "appliance operator?"

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
People can tell if their microwave appliance is working correctly by tasting their food. People can tell if their toaster appliance is working correctly by looking at the toast. People can tell if their dishwasher appliance is working correctly if the dishes come out clean. People can tell if their clothes washer appliance is working correctly if the clothes come out clean. People can tell if their blender appliance is working correctly if the result comes out blended.

In each of these situations people know what the output of the appliance is supposed to be and each includes a metric #people can measure to tell if their appliance is working correctly. In other words they know how the appliance works, at least at a basic level.

How does a radio appliance operator tell if their transmitter is working correctly if they don't have the expertise to know how the appliance works and how to make measurements to apply against the metric?

What's wrong with being an "appliance operator", at least as the term is appied to amateur radio, is that your transmitter can impact many people besides you. It's not like a toaster that only impacts that toast it makes for you. If you don't know how your appliance works and can't make *AND INTERPRET* the proper measurements to insure it is working within specified limits you can make the hobby unusuable for many people outside your personal sphere.

tim ab0wr

N3JI

03-01-2007, 04:07 PM

Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Mar. 01 2007,09:12)]Quote[/b] (N3JI @ Feb. 28 2007,16:18)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Feb. 28 2007,13:13)]///SNIP///
I'm well aware of ESSB and have heard some nice sounding signals on the air. #

Well once again, I must set you straight. #THAT'S the part that distinguishes an eSSB'er from an appliance operator...
N3JI, I'm sure you're a nice guy who enjoys the hobby and you seem very passionate about voice quality experimentation. #Having said that you might want to change your approach to these discussions just a bit since I'm a bit offended by one of your responses. #

Saying things like " Once again I must set you straight" is a very provocative response. #I've been a ham for more years than I care to count and #a EE for 30, almost 31 years. #I worked at Harris designing radio systems for 11 of those years so I don't think your going to set me straight on anything.

I am pretty familliar with #Hilbert and Fourier transforms and the phase shift/vector summing method of generating DSB and SSB signals.

Please don't assume that because someone doesn't share your enthusiasm for wide band single sideband that they are an appliace operator, that's simply not true.

Enjoy the hobby and perhaps I'll hear you on the air sometime.
You've taken that completely the wrong way. #The appliance operator comment was referring to someone that buys a bunch of audio boxes, plugs them up to their rigs without considering some of the things you mentioned, and apparently puts out a wide, distorted signal.

Yes, I am passionate about this subject, but please don't cut apart my post to make it appear that I was saying something I wasn't. #The entire post makes it clear (at least to me) that you were not the target of that comment. #I'm not going to apologize because there was no offense intended, and it appeared to me that you assumed that the "most appropriate" rigs use a DBM & filtering to produce SSB. #In fact, desireable eSSB rigs do not. #That's what I was attempting to set you straight about, and I stand by it. #My experience has told me that the phasing method of producing SSB is much cleaner than the filter method, which is what the DSP basically does. #You may know volumes about designing DBMs and Fourier transforms, but you apparently don't know the amount of thought and hours of work that many of us have put into ensuring we *don't* splatter or create unecessary IMD. #That's all I'm trying to illustrate here.

And besides, like the other poster mentioned, there's nothing wrong with being an appliance operator if you operate the appliance correctly. #It was not meant as a derogatory comment. #The eSSB'er takes a much deeper plunge into how we sound, and what our signals look like on the band. #I will however say that if you want to be an appliance operator, then do the rest of us a favor and don't buy a stack of audio gear unless you fully intend on learning how to connect it, adjust it, and drive your rig & monitor your signal properly. #None of us are perfect and we all make plenty of mistakes. #And that's okay too, but all I ask is that if you want to experiment with audio gear and wider bandwidths, please do it responsibly. #A big part of being an Amateur is learning. #It's nearly impossible to do that without making some mistakes in the process.

Joe, N3JI

W3MIV

03-01-2007, 04:50 PM

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Mar. 01 2007,11:01)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Mar. 01 2007,08:23)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Mar. 01 2007,10:12)]Please don't assume that because someone doesn't share your enthusiasm for wide band single sideband that they are an applia[n]ce operator, that's simply not true.
What's wrong with being an "appliance operator?"

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
People can tell if their microwave appliance is working correctly by tasting their food. People can tell if their toaster appliance is working correctly by looking at the toast. People can tell if their dishwasher appliance is working correctly if the dishes come out clean. People can tell if their clothes washer appliance is working correctly if the clothes come out clean. People can tell if their blender appliance is working correctly if the result comes out blended.

In each of these situations people know what the output of the appliance is supposed to be and each includes a metric #people can measure to tell if their appliance is working correctly. In other words they know how the appliance works, at least at a basic level.

How does a radio appliance operator tell if their transmitter is working correctly if they don't have the expertise to know how the appliance works and how to make measurements to apply against the metric?

What's wrong with being an "appliance operator", at least as the term is appied to amateur radio, is that your transmitter can impact many people besides you. It's not like a toaster that only impacts that toast it makes for you. If you don't know how your appliance works and can't make *AND INTERPRET* the proper measurements to insure it is working within specified limits you can make the hobby unusuable for many people outside your personal sphere.

tim ab0wr
You are fighting a losing battle, Tim. As Orv would put it, "Welcome to the 21st century."

K1VSK

03-01-2007, 05:02 PM

This has gone on long enough (for me) and I long-since received the answer to my original post query.
Those who use eSSB like and defend it. Those who don't, don't.
Some apparently ambivalent hams stir the pot citing regulations and philosophy.
Some are simply insulting and arrogant.
For those of you who provided objective information, thanks.
I now understand why it is gaining popularity and hope those of you who have some experience can educate those who clearly don't operate their "appliances" to the quality and bandwidth standards we all appreciate.

kn4ds

03-01-2007, 05:10 PM

Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Mar. 01 2007,10:12)]I worked at Harris designing radio systems for 11 of those years
Aha... YOU! You're the ONE!

I hope you were on the RF side of the house (though what they were thinking with some of the things in some of those transmitters... never mind)...

Just lightening the mood a bit folks...

ab0wr

03-01-2007, 05:48 PM

Quote[/b] (N3JI @ Mar. 01 2007,09:07)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Mar. 01 2007,09:12)]Quote[/b] (N3JI @ Feb. 28 2007,16:18)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Feb. 28 2007,13:13)]///SNIP///
I'm well aware of ESSB and have heard some nice sounding signals on the air. #

Well once again, I must set you straight. #THAT'S the part that distinguishes an eSSB'er from an appliance operator...
N3JI, I'm sure you're a nice guy who enjoys the hobby and you seem very passionate about voice quality experimentation. #Having said that you might want to change your approach to these discussions just a bit since I'm a bit offended by one of your responses. #

Saying things like " Once again I must set you straight" is a very provocative response. #I've been a ham for more years than I care to count and #a EE for 30, almost 31 years. #I worked at Harris designing radio systems for 11 of those years so I don't think your going to set me straight on anything.

I am pretty familliar with #Hilbert and Fourier transforms and the phase shift/vector summing method of generating DSB and SSB signals.

Please don't assume that because someone doesn't share your enthusiasm for wide band single sideband that they are an appliace operator, that's simply not true.

Enjoy the hobby and perhaps I'll hear you on the air sometime.
You've taken that completely the wrong way. #The appliance operator comment was referring to someone that buys a bunch of audio boxes, plugs them up to their rigs without considering some of the things you mentioned, and apparently puts out a wide, distorted signal.

Yes, I am passionate about this subject, but please don't cut apart my post to make it appear that I was saying something I wasn't. #The entire post makes it clear (at least to me) that you were not the target of that comment. #I'm not going to apologize because there was no offense intended, and it appeared to me that you assumed that the "most appropriate" rigs use a DBM & filtering to produce SSB. #In fact, desireable eSSB rigs do not. #That's what I was attempting to set you straight about, and I stand by it. #My experience has told me that the phasing method of producing SSB is much cleaner than the filter method, which is what the DSP basically does. #You may know volumes about designing DBMs and Fourier transforms, but you apparently don't know the amount of thought and hours of work that many of us have put into ensuring we *don't* splatter or create unecessary IMD. #That's all I'm trying to illustrate here.

And besides, like the other poster mentioned, there's nothing wrong with being an appliance operator if you operate the appliance correctly. #It was not meant as a derogatory comment. #The eSSB'er takes a much deeper plunge into how we sound, and what our signals look like on the band. #I will however say that if you want to be an appliance operator, then do the rest of us a favor and don't buy a stack of audio gear unless you fully intend on learning how to connect it, adjust it, and drive your rig & monitor your signal properly. #None of us are perfect and we all make plenty of mistakes. #And that's okay too, but all I ask is that if you want to experiment with audio gear and wider bandwidths, please do it responsibly. #A big part of being an Amateur is learning. #It's nearly impossible to do that without making some mistakes in the process.

Joe, N3JI
Joe,

Wait a minute.

Do most DSP rigs do the math associated with the phasing method or do they do the math associated with the mixing/filter method? Or is it a mix?

I know that each are equally realizable in DSP. The math is not that hard to implement.

I've never seen anything on something like a 756pro lay out exactly how this is implemented in their DSP's (I've not actually looked either!).

Do you know what rigs do it one way and what rigs do it the other?

tim ab0wr

ab0wr

03-01-2007, 06:19 PM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Mar. 01 2007,09:50)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Mar. 01 2007,11:01)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Mar. 01 2007,08:23)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Mar. 01 2007,10:12)]Please don't assume that because someone doesn't share your enthusiasm for wide band single sideband that they are an applia[n]ce operator, that's simply not true.
What's wrong with being an "appliance operator?"

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
People can tell if their microwave appliance is working correctly by tasting their food. People can tell if their toaster appliance is working correctly by looking at the toast. People can tell if their dishwasher appliance is working correctly if the dishes come out clean. People can tell if their clothes washer appliance is working correctly if the clothes come out clean. People can tell if their blender appliance is working correctly if the result comes out blended.

In each of these situations people know what the output of the appliance is supposed to be and each includes a metric #people can measure to tell if their appliance is working correctly. In other words they know how the appliance works, at least at a basic level.

How does a radio appliance operator tell if their transmitter is working correctly if they don't have the expertise to know how the appliance works and how to make measurements to apply against the metric?

What's wrong with being an "appliance operator", at least as the term is appied to amateur radio, is that your transmitter can impact many people besides you. It's not like a toaster that only impacts that toast it makes for you. If you don't know how your appliance works and can't make *AND INTERPRET* the proper measurements to insure it is working within specified limits you can make the hobby unusuable for many people outside your personal sphere.

tim ab0wr
You are fighting a losing battle, Tim. As Orv would put it, "Welcome to the 21st century."
I've never seen a windmill I didn't like.

tim ab0wr

N3JI

03-01-2007, 08:04 PM

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Mar. 01 2007,11:48)]Joe,

Wait a minute.

Do most DSP rigs do the math associated with the phasing method or do they do the math associated with the mixing/filter method? Or is it a mix?

I know that each are equally realizable in DSP. The math is not that hard to implement.

I've never seen anything on something like a 756pro lay out exactly how this is implemented in their DSP's (I've not actually looked either!).

Do you know what rigs do it one way and what rigs do it the other?

tim ab0wr
Tim as far as I know, the DSPs are using the phasing method. #I had asked some time ago how the DSPs worked in an Amateur transceiver, and that was the answer. #Like you, I could see how both methods could be done in DSP, but I'll go out on a limb and assume they're all done the same way.

Here are a few links on DSP SSB generation:
http://www.doug-smith.net/hifidesign1.htm
http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/imd_measurements.htm
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/9011/28611/01280328.pdf

I have taken some DSP classes, but they were mainly focused in the cellular industry, which had nothing to do with SSB...

Joe, N3JI

k4kyv

03-01-2007, 08:47 PM

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Mar. 01 2007,12:53)]I don't know that having a BFO and signal out of phase is really considered "phase distortion". In the frequency domain this is nothing more than a frequency offset. It applies equally to every frequency contained in the received signal. It may cause a received signal to not sound tonally like the originating audio signal but within small limits it shouldn't affect the intelligibility very much.
It shouldn't make any difference at all, if the opposite sideband is completely suppressed. But if there is some vestige of the other sideband still being transmitted, which is often the case at the lower audio frequencies, it is really vestigial sideband (the same mode used for TV video), not SSB. Vestigial sideband or any other variation of double sideband, requires that the BFO be exactly on frequency and precisely in phase with the original carrier, to avoid distortion at the detector.

This can be accomplished by the use of a synchronous detector, resulting in far superior double-sideband and conventional AM reception.

ab0wr

03-01-2007, 10:09 PM

Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Mar. 01 2007,13:47)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Mar. 01 2007,12:53)]I don't know that having a BFO and signal out of phase is really considered "phase distortion". In the frequency domain this is nothing more than a frequency offset. It applies equally to every frequency contained in the received signal. It may cause a received signal to not sound tonally like the originating audio signal but within small limits it shouldn't affect the intelligibility very much.
It shouldn't make any difference at all, if the opposite sideband is completely suppressed. #But if there is some vestige of the other sideband still being transmitted, which is often the case at the lower audio frequencies, it is really vestigial sideband (the same mode used for TV video), not SSB. #Vestigial sideband or any other variation of double sideband, requires that the BFO be exactly on frequency and precisely in phase with the original carrier, to avoid distortion at the detector.

This can be accomplished by the use of a synchronous detector, resulting in far superior double-sideband and conventional AM reception.
You are going to have to explain this one to me.

I can see if there is some suppressed carrier left that the BFO phase will be very important. If they aren't the same you will get signal cancellations and beat frequencies of the entire waveform, etc.

But for purely double sideband transmission, where a product detector only multiplies each frequency by the BFO frequency, it would seem you get (Fsignal + Fbfo) and (Fsig - Fbfo) in the frequency domain, so I'm missing why the Fbfo phase is important to prevent distortion.

If the phase difference between Fcarrier-Faudio and the Fbfo is the same as the phase difference between Fcarrier+Faudio (i.e. upper and lower sidebands) and the Fbfo, then when they are multiplied by Fbfo, the phase relationship between the two should be the same.

You will wind up with Fsignal-Faudio-F(bfo+phi) and Fsignal+Faudio-F(bfo + phi). This should finally wind up as -Faudio+phi and +Faudio+phi. Since they will have the same phase relationship (just offset) I'm not sure where the distortion would come in.

I can see how you would get distortion on a DSB signal from a *frequency* difference between the original carrier and the Fbfo because signal elements represented by Fcarrier-Faudio-F(bfo+phi) and Fcarrier+Faudio-F(bfo+phi) would not be the same. But I'm not understanding why the phase difference would be important.

Please elucidate!

tim ab0wr

w2vw

03-02-2007, 02:23 AM

Quote[/b] (N3JI @ Feb. 28 2007,14:00)][quote=N6WK,Feb. 28 2007,10:47]

And as has already been mentioned several times (and ignored), there are *FAR* more "splattering" stations on the air that *aren't* eSSB stations.
The same 2 or 3 guys who argue every thread containing the words ssb and fidelity also tell the world how ALC is the cure to all ham problems.
The other laugh is that Collins 2.1 mechanical filter is end all setup for every ham using singled sideband. Can any of these guys tell us what manufacturer has built a radio with a transmit bandwidth and shape factor similar to that of a radio using an FA 455 (or Y) 21 in the last quarter of a century???
Would you rather hear people on the air experimenting and maybe even sounding really bad or no signals on the air? Wait a dozen or so years.

N3JI

03-02-2007, 03:11 PM

Quote[/b] (w2vw @ Mar. 01 2007,20:23)]Quote[/b] (N3JI @ Feb. 28 2007,14:00)][quote=N6WK,Feb. 28 2007,10:47]

And as has already been mentioned several times (and ignored), there are *FAR* more "splattering" stations on the air that *aren't* eSSB stations.
The same 2 or 3 guys who argue every thread containing the words ssb and fidelity also tell the world how ALC is the cure to all ham problems.
The other laugh is that Collins 2.1 mechanical filter is end all setup for every ham using singled sideband. Can any of these guys tell us what manufacturer has built a radio with a transmit bandwidth and shape factor similar to that of a radio using an FA 455 (or Y) 21 in the last quarter of a century???
Would you rather hear people on the air experimenting and maybe even sounding really bad or no signals on the air? Wait a dozen or so years.
Gordon... Where'd you get that from?? The cure is to *NOT* run the rigs into ALC. I set mine so I get maybe one or two bars of ALC occasionally, and that's very rare. My rig is capable of 150W, yet I only need about 85W to drive my Henry 3K-A to legal limit. What I'm complaining about are the guys with the mic gain & compression cranked way up pegging the ALC.

2.1 kHz is just way too narrow to get any kind of fidelity. I can emulate any filter with my EQ & rig's DSP TX BW settings. That's kind of the point of such precise control of your audio. If you listen to the audio sample posted earlier, you can hear a fair emulation of such a narrow BW at the very end of the clip. The narrowest BW I run is 3k. I set my EQ & rig for a BW of 400-3400 Hz and I get fantastic results that way while contesting. Those extra highs really make your signal stand out of the crowd!

As far as your last paragraph, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm already hearing lots of "..../AG"s on the bands, so there is some new blood showing up. Say what you want about that, but I for one am welcoming the new Generals. Anything else would be ungentlemanly & unbecoming of an experienced Amateur.

Joe, N3JI