Why so much obsession with fat SSB?

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by W8AAZ, Mar 25, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-3
ad: Left-2
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Subscribe
ad: K5AB-Elect-1
  1. KC3SWL

    KC3SWL XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    I use the Kenwood TS870, and it has numerous settings for the audio. I find that using 2.8 Khz or 3.0 Khz on a dx contact has worked rather well, especially since I just operate without an amplifier. I have received many unasked for compliments on the audio of the transmission.
    I have tried various settings such as 2.4 KHz or 2.5 Khz , the results vary depending on who is using what to hear me.
    That ALC level has a lot to do with having a decent signal versus a distorted signal.
    Occasionally when on 80 meters I can hear a group of operators just above the Extra portion around 3803 that splatter the hell out of every radio I have. They must be using gear set to 5 or 10 kHz like Radio Habana Cuba and their crappy modulation. However , advising them of the interference is about useless since their excuse is your radio is junk. So I just avoid the morons and try to prevent myself from representing an oxymoron.
     
    WQ4G and K3XR like this.
  2. N1FM

    N1FM Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I don't own a wideband SSB transceiver, but don't you guys remember the defeated bandwidth petition back in 'ought four?

    SSB is just AM with one sideband and the carrier suppressed.

    You can transmit at 1.8 (Donald Duck) or 2.0 or 2.4 (Communications grade) or 2.8 (Telephone) 3.0 (Standard) or 6.0 (Hi-Fi), or whatever.

    Naturally, if the band is crowded, you should keep your SSB transmission to less than 3 KHz to be a good neighbor.

    According to the FCC - It's all part of the hobby and part of the experimental nature of amateur radio.

    In sum, we are not persuaded by Petitioner's claims that bandwidth restrictions are necessary, and, therefore, deny the Petition.

    12. IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Rulemaking, RM-10740, submitted by Michael D. Lonneke and Melvin J. Ladisky on May 27, 2003, IS DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
    Michael J. Wilhelm
    Chief, Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division

    https://www.nu9n.com/images/FCC-DA-04-3661A1-final.pdf
     
    AI3V, K4KYV, NL7W and 3 others like this.
  3. W9RAC

    W9RAC Subscriber QRZ Page

    You are correct. If the other guy is not listening wide then it does make the listening more difficult to sometimes impossible. The eSSB fad has been around since the TS850/DSP100, going back many years. The good eSSB OP's will run down the band where no one is offended not trying to squeeze in a 4+ signal in a 3 wide hole. There is a lot of popularity regarding audio experimentation meaning the manufacturers have taken advantage of it. 73 Rich
     
    NE1U likes this.
  4. W9RAC

    W9RAC Subscriber QRZ Page

    That became quite a divided issue a while back. It was the "have bandwidth" VS "have not bandwidth", a lot of good comments, some bad also. 73 Rich
     
  5. NE1U

    NE1U Ham Member QRZ Page

    In the wee hours when few are on the air, I experiment with eSSB. With a sdr waterfall it is easy to find any other eSSB signals and match their bandwidth. Just dial it up to match their signal width and they sound very good.
     
    NY7Z, AI3V and W9RAC like this.
  6. W9RAC

    W9RAC Subscriber QRZ Page

    Generally eSSB and CW OP's don't mix well, evidently we are a exception, Ill look for you on 3.630. 73 Rich
     
    NE1U likes this.
  7. N1FM

    N1FM Premium Subscriber QRZ Page


    Yes, and the ARRL 'regulation by bandwidth' plan RM-11306, in 2005 was absolutely trashed by the ham community.

    So much so, that ARRL withdrew it, much like the recent ARPA plan.

    These bandwidths were proposed in various segments across all our bands. Also known as the 'Bandwidth Balkanization of Ham Radio.'*

    >200 Hz is intended to be the narrowest bandwidth to permit Morse telegraphy at all speeds that human operators can decode. The necessary bandwidth depends on speed and whether the circuit is fading or non-fading. An analysis by ARRL in the 1980s showed that 150 Hz is adequate and is based on rise and fall times of 5 ms. A bandwidth of 200 Hz will permit data modes such as PSK3 1 as well.

    >500 Hz is meant to provide for RTTY and data modes, and possibly new image modes, but the bandwidth is not adequate for conventional telephony. This is not, however, to exclude
    experimentation with highly compressed or synthesized telephony designed to fit in a 500-Hz bandwidth at sacrifice of natural sounding voice.

    >2.8 kHz is required by NTIA for Amateur operation on the designated 60-meter channels.

    >3.5 kHz would accommodate SSB and digital telephony, image, high-speed data and multimedia (that is, a combination of these modes). ARRL recommends 3.5 kHz as a general rule rather than 2.7 kHz as is specified in the band plan in ITU Region 1, or 2.8 kHz as required by NTIA for Amateur use on the 60-meter channels. However, 3.5 kHz is not wide enough for DSB-AM, so a separate sub-paragraph is proposed to accommodate such operation as a specific exception to the general 3.5 kHz bandwidth standard.

    >9 kHz: Though the necessary bandwidth of a DSB AM emission is often stated as 6KOOA3E, ARRL recommends 9 kHz in order to leave no doubt that transmitters now in use for DSB AM emissions can continue to be operated.

    >16 kHz also is a reasonable compromise bandwidth to continue to permit analog FM voice, data, digital voice and multimedia in the 29.0-29.7 MHz segment.

    >100kHz bandwidths for wider digital modes from 2 meters to above 300 GHz.


    https://www.nu9n.com/images/RM-11306.pdf

    *Balkanization is a geopolitical term for the process of fragmentation or division of a region or state into smaller regions or states that are often hostile or uncooperative with one another.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkanization#Nations_and_societies
     
  8. WD8T

    WD8T Subscriber QRZ Page

    This certainly is a thread of opinions so here's mine. If you want to experiment with a wider transmit/receive bandwidth and audio gear then why not? There are all kinds of crazy nets and operating activities and modes out there that I don't care for but some do and I don't call those hams stupid or ignorant. It's all part of the hobby so play with it within the limits of your license class and FCC regs. There's nothing in the rules (read this next part carefully) that specifically limits our transmit bandwidth for the purpose mentioned in this topic.

    I used to listen to the guys playing with their audio gear on 14.182 or close to that. My Yaesu FTDX-1200 would open up to 4Khz and most of them sounded great. I'm not sure if they're still there though. on the other hand I hear way more hams who are not doing this so-called hi-fi SSB who have horrible xmit audio. The station they are in a QSO with won't even mention the rf in their audio of how bad they sound.
     
    NY7Z, AI3V and AG5CK like this.
  9. W9RAC

    W9RAC Subscriber QRZ Page

    That does work to a degree. However you can not EQ something that does not exist. Trying to EQ a narrow signal lacking those frequencies will prove to less than successful, ending up with a harsh end product of EQed mid-range frequencies. Generally most of the audio energy of a standard SSB signal will be in the mids, something you will be elimination with eSSB EQing. You will be able to enhance the 2.8 signal a bit but it will be very limited from a receive prospective. I have heard many broadcast 3 khz signals that are EQed which sound very good. It's what a guy likes to hear also. 73 Rich
     
  10. KA4DPO

    KA4DPO Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Yep, and it is not new. A lot of hams were doing ESSB thing in the 90's using the Kenwood TS-870. That rig had an external audio input port and you could run as wide a 6 kC. Whenever anyone complains about how crummy it sounds the pundits start yelling that "YOUR" receiver is just too narrow. The purpose of SSB is to get reasonable voice intelligence in a narrow bandwidth, if these miscreants want Hi Fi, they need to get on AM. Whenever I hear the "we just want to experiment BS", I tell them that there is bandwidth to burn on the VHF and UHF bands, even 10 meters has a hundred KHZ of AM real estate, go there and play to your hearts content.
     
    WQ4G, N3AB and ND6M like this.

Share This Page