ENHANCED SINGLE SIDEBAND (ESSB) CONTROVERSY And SURVEY

You're not really confirmed as a "HAM" until you get an OO card! I'm working on WAS-OO. I keep them right next to all the other SWL QSL's ;-) Seriously, I do appreciate that somebody is listening and cares enough to alert me of their concerns.

73 John

 

It must be remembered that the apparent bandwidth of a signal as it is tuned in on a receiver is the sum of the transmitted bandwidth and the width of the passband selectivity of the receiver. For example, when tuning in a CW signal or unmodulated carrier using a receiver set to 3 kHz in SSB mode, the signal will appear across 3 kHz of dial space on the receiver, even though a clean unmodulated carrier has zero bandwidth. A 3 kHz wide SSB signal tuned in on the same receiver will appear across 6 kHz of dial space. A 7 kHz wide AM signal will appear across 10 kHz of dial space.

If the signal is high in strength and well above the background noise, it will likely appear even wider, since the selectivity passband characteristic of any receiver is less than a perfect rectangle; even the best bandpass filters have some slope at the skirts. In addition, no transmitter is 100% free of spurious distortion products and no receiver is 100% free of spurious responses. If a signal is coming in at 40 dB over S9 on an accurately calibrated s-meter (if there is such a thing), even though the spurious products outside the passband are within FCC specifications at -40 dB, these distortion products will still appear as S9 at the receiver!

The total bandwidth of a signal is a product of two distinct characteristics: the bandwidth (frequency response) of the signal used to modulate, and spurious distortion products. Both characteristics may be excessive, but the latter is far more likely than the former to cause harmful interference to adjacent channel communications, particularly when the source of modulation is the human voice.

 

Almost: its the convolution, not the sum.

All of these discussions assume legal operation within FCC specs/ guidelines for enhanced SSB.

73,
Chip W1YW

 

Correct me if wrong, but the audio processing techniques being suggested would be applied before RF modulation, and upon being demodulated at any receiving station, could produce psychoacoustics effects that could increase the intelligibility of the vocal content. If so wouldn’t these techniques also work and be potentially useful not only with SSB modulation, but with other forms as well; AM, FM, digital? To help a receiving station correctly perceive the voice content not just out of QRM and a weak and fading RF signal, but also in a acoustically noisy receive listeners environment, such as when mobile, portable, at a hamfest, etc. A benefit sort of like a “Clear Speech” DSP clarifier speaker system provides, but with the work being done at the “front end”, forward-processing the audio so to speak.

It’s logical that SSB is the first focus, where the most benefit could probably be made. However, especially if these techniques are being needlessly restricted to solely SSB, I have to concur with Ed and others about the term. The letters “ESSB”, however you write or carefully define them, have been irrevocably tainted by the previous controversy. A good attention-getter, but relying on that term stirs emotions that could impede the real objective of having an open-minded attitude toward continuing experimentation. It’s like trying to use the words “gun control” at an NRA rally.

My suggestion - if it’s about PsychoAcoustics Processing for Intelligibility, then call it PAPI.

Like Big Papi, the BOSOX David Ortiz ;-) Everybody loves him! (except Yankee’s fans)

 

A better name would help--but PAPI aint welcome here no more!

Let's get the poll out first and convince folks of the benefits--then do a re-name. the 'PA' part sounds very promising IMO

73,
Chip w1YW

 

SWB, Single Wideband!!

 

How about 'Single-Psy-Band' ;-)?

73,
Chip W1YW

 

Psycho Side Band? PSB?

 

AHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHHAH! ROTFL!

 

POLL RESULTS

RESPONSES:
There were 87 responses to the poll, excluding those (about an additional 20) who wanted to discuss wider bandwidth emissions (almost all of which were highly negative) . The comments were especially diverse, and most have been shared directly or in kind on this thread. Feel free to elaborate yourself if you’d like.
The results were as follows:

Have you heard of ESSB before?

YES: 19 NO: 68 Clearly some hams are using techniques that are not known, or not known well, within the amateur radio community. That’s fairly unusual—while many new technologies in ham radio have their specialized community niches (SDR; digital voice, high speed CW/meteor pings, and so on) the presence of their existence is fairly well known. Typical comment: ”If it was good everyone would be using it on HF and I’d know about it.” Note that about 12,500 views on this thread—the most in roughly half a year on QRZ.com—indicate some level of curiousity. Information on ESSB is clearly lacking. The confusion between EXTENDED (wide bandwidth ) and ENHANCED has been greatly to the detriment of this enhanced approach. Many of the answers point out that confusion.

Have you ever used ESSB?

YES: 10 NO: 77 Some folks are definitely using it. Many are using a ham-targeted audio processing line (by a ham) while others are using off the shelf audio engineering outboard gear. As mentioned below, I suggest that individuals post their ‘box’ list as this poll is not intended as an endorsement.

Do you want to use ESSB?

YES: 53 NO: 34 Some folks felt that SSB benefits rom 50 years of use and we shouldn’t mess with it. But a majority of responders were either using ESSB or would if it was an option. Typical comment: “ I run 100 watts to an FT101 so if there is a cheap way to break the pileups better I want it.”

Has the cost and complication of extra boxes stopped you from using ESSB?

YES: 78 NO: 9 Some folks look at it the same way you’d consider the purchase of an antenna tuner or amplifier. The complication is finding knowledge of plug and play or DIY. Almost everyone is looking for articles, especially construction articles. Some folks wanted a list of boxes that people are using (NOTE: this is a reasonable request, but I don’t want to bias anyone with this included here. If folks want to post what they’re using that’s a great idea)—and the cost.

Does ESSB have its place in ham radio?

YES: 70 NO:17 Most hams buy into experimenting apparently. There was definitely a laisse faire philosophy of ‘I may not do it but others should be able to ’ in the comments.

If you use ESSB, is it a benefit or has no advantage to you?

From the 10 users…MAIN ADVANTAGES: a) cutting thorugh pileups b) better copy by others in poor propagation; c)easier to listen to at other end d) “great audio reports”.

 

It's interesting to note that this thread has had some 12,500+ views and barely 200 posts. That should give an idea of how many people care about the subject. And more importantly, with only a paltry 87 responses, the poll has less than zero validity.

Moreover, since ESSB (however you define it) is not new, this thread is not news and was posted in the wrong area. It should've been put in Opinions and Editorials or the Survey Center. You might've gotten MORE response, had you posted it where it belongs.

This will be my last post in this thread, and I will not be reading it again (i.e., responses in an attempt to change my point of view are pointless).

 

Agreed.

1. The author's definition of essb (<3KHZ) is not the one that is commonly accepted.

2. Contrary to the title of the thread, there is/has been no controversy at anytime (until this thread, anyway) about the author's defininition of essb.

3. The techniques described have been used since at least the 1970s, and really took off in the early to mid 1990s with the introduction of the Kenwood 950sdx, The Icom 775 and the Kenwood 870; among others. There were entire groups dedicated to experimenting with the described techniques.
This is nothing new at all.

4. The assertion of psycho acoustics as absolute is invalid. While certainly there are potential psycho acoustic results from the listed techniques, often what you hear is what you hear; even when using interpretations like those of Erik Larsen and Ian McLoughlin.

 

Thanks to everyone who made comments and gave feedback on the enhanced SSb thread and poll.

I was happy to volunteer my effort to make this interesting technology application awareness in our community.

There will be several OTA demos and at least one article as a result.

Wishing everyone Gud DX and great audio!

73,
Chip W1YW

 

And Chip will cheerfully ignore you.