Intentionally Transmitting Non Flat SSB Audio ?
I see (and hear) some stations transmitting equalized SSB audio. Much of this audio has it's bass response equalized by many DB to 'sound better'. It is almost comical to watch someone adjust his transmit audio to please everyone. I about fell out of my chair the other evening watching grown Men going crazy, trying in vain to make SSB sound like FM, or even AM. They were asking for opinions about how they sounded, so I told a few of them they sounded like Sugar Hotel India Tango, and they did. But I listen sometimes on professional studio monitor speakers that are accurate. I can hear the hyped up bass EQ.
It is my opinion these guys obsessed with 'high quality audio' might do better to concentrate on transmitting a FLAT audio signal, and let the guy on the OTHER end apply the EQ.
One never knows what speaker another station is listening to you on, or the acoustics of someones room. To adjust your transmitted audio signal to compensate for the 'shortcomings' in the receiving station will make you sound terrible on receiving stations w/o those 'shortcomings'.
Think about it ? FM Stations don't as a rule hype up bass and treble to compensate for those listening in automobiles. To do so will make them sound funny to those listening at home, on full range speakers.
OK, I know it will not be as much fun as " Ok, here is the HEIL Mic, now here is the MC 50 Mic, now here is the Tube Ribbon Mic "
Those conversations will be replaced by " I gave you a 3db bump at 125k and 2db cut at 2.5K to make your received audio sound better on my TS 850 with a stock speaker"
Originally Posted by KA7NIQ
I swear to God, if my Elmer were still alive, he would do his best to beat my you know what if I operated like some of these Lids do. You KNOW the ones I speak of. The ones who splatter all over the band, and can be heard as clearly on one sideband as the other. OK, with DSP, it is possible to run a little wider transmitted audio bandwidth within the filter slopes, but some Lids carry this to extremes.
Why not just run the stock SSB bandwidth, and if someone wants you to have more highs and lows, he can adjust HIS equalizer.
Was not the whole idea of SSB to make it possible for more people to use a given bandwidth ? Now, how can we do that, when some are intentionally widening themselves ?
I can't see the point of transmitting something that most people can't hear, it's just wasted power as far as I'm concerned.
Like corntesting, dudgital modes, AM, and others, enhanced audio is a subculture of our hobby. They have found something that interests them, and as long as they limit their bandwidth to 3kHz, what's the harm? Like kicking a contester for the ridiculous "5-9 5-9" and then asking for repeats, or the digital schlomos for using macros for most of the QSO, or CW pounders who don't pound, they use a computer. For regular SSB users who don't have a clue about their "Turner +2" audio splattering 4 khz, or their AM signal 12kHz wide, or the "net" that feels entitled to plop 2kHz away from an ongoing QSO because it's THEIR freq. Every group had its foibles because imperfect people are involved with all our individual quirks and "it's all about me" attitude. Just get over it or hit the "off" button.
No harm at all, except that ESSB, essentially by definition, is at least 6khz wide.
Originally Posted by KY5U
I have listened to the ESSB stations and I don't see the point. If there is noise on the band, you know they are there, but you cannot understand them, so forget using ESSB for anything but ideal conditions. Even under ideal conditions, one must 'open' up the receiver passband to get the proper effect, otherwise they sound all low and mushy. Once you opoen up the reciever, you get alot QRM from adjacent stations.
In the 1990s we did alot of experimenting with audio on 160m; microphones, compressors, EQs, delays etc.
Some of those guys had incredible audio, and yet it was still within the stock filter passband, usually 2.4 - 3khz
Of course when a VK, or ZL, or other DX popped on, they could hear and understand them. No ESSB signal I have heard could do that.
At the risk of sounding like an old curmudgeon; what's the point?
I want to sound as good as possible, cause as little interference to adjacent stations, and still be heard and understood.
Last edited by N4MXZ; 04-03-2011 at 06:52 PM.
Except in times of declared emergency, amateur radio should be fun!
DE Zimbabwe, AKA Melvin of Sideband
I wish more would read this description of what SSB is ....
Since the fidelity of the SSB voice transmission has been altered somewhat through various filters in the process of producing the sideband that is not too wide, usually only the most important portions or characteristics of the voice frequencies needed to communicate are allowed through, and this causes the lack of true AM or FM fidelity to the transmission, but the communication, (understandable), portions of the voice characteristics remain, which is all that is needed in the first place. It is a "communications" mode, not wide band HI FI commercial broadcast FM radio, CD quality mode!
The information contained in the average human voice needed to understand the voice is contained within about the first 3000hz of the human hearing range. Frequencies of the human voice beyond this range are not needed for communication purposes and are filtered out in the modulation process. So the average bandwidth of a SSB signal is about 3000hz wide with all of the voice characteristics needed within that range to be understandable.
They've been demonstrating the transmission of carap audio for the last ten years. Are they still in the experimental stages of digital SSB ? I would have thought that in this time they ought to have mastered the process. I think there must be money involved somewhere !
Maybe they should read this ?
Originally Posted by G0GQK
WideFi or Enhanced Audio
Enhanced SSB audio is a generally bad idea, since it adds and boosts unnecessary lows and highs. Audio response flattening brings levels of unnecessary low and high frequencies up, and this rapidly increases power level in unwanted off-frequency products compared to normal communications audio. The frequency difference between lows and highs is wider, so the "junk" extends further than normal. The level of lows and highs are significantly stronger than levels in normal communications audio, and this makes IM products much stronger. As a matter of fact, energy in IM products does not follow a linear increase as base and treble are increased! Unwanted power on adjacent channels increases at several times the rate of the power increase in base and treble!
Make no mistake about it, enhanced SSB or Hi-fi SSB audio, even with perfect "brick wall" filtering, is always going to have significantly more unwanted energy on adjacent channels when compared to regular communications audio through the same system.
Many of the radios popular with the ESSB crowd are among poorer radios for IM performance! My own opinion is Hi-Fi audio is OK on emptier bands, but we should do all we can to discourage enhanced audio on crowded bands or near weak signal areas.
It's very easy to get caught up in the details and arrangements of voice input. My thinking is that given the fact that the rigs of the past decade or so do not lend themselves to internal tinkering--and much of the peripheral gear is no longer built by the ham but bought off a shelf--audio becomes one more thing to tinker with. Another major area is the computer interfaces.
When I started in this hobby back in the stone age, it was ordinary to take a Greenlee punch and knock holes in a blank chassis in order to build a modulator for ARC-5 and other WWII surplus gear. Almost every rig could be improved by breaking out the soldering iron and making a few changes in the circuitry. As to wire antennas, you made them. I don't recall being able to buy a dozen different premade varieties. Things to tinker with have changed. And no, diddling about with BGA ICs and miniscule SMT components is not even close or within the reach of the average tech tinkerer.
I was intrigued and started playing games with this in terms of various mics and preamp configurations. It took nearly a year for the reality to settle in that there was almost nothing that could make an IC-751A sound any better--it already had stellar performance and reports. But it was something to dither about with...