Kevin King wrote: > I agree we do not need to make more "pairs" everywhere. But let's face it. > We build from the left over's from the commercial world. Ok some of you buy > all new latest, etc. At some point most of the gear is going to be narrow.
Yes, likely. But that's a long way off. I'm talking 10-15 years until: 1)Narrowbanded commercial gear is readily available at prices hams can afford, and 2) Enough of the existing equipment is old enough that it needs to be replaced. > Do any of the older operators remember moving to "narrow" band before? Barely. I remember worrying about putting a 146.85 repeater just down the road from 146.88 and 146.82 because of adjacent channel splatter...:c) > Let's set the politics aside and see what this change can add? Obviously we > have a transition period. Can we have a dual input machine with wide and > narrow IF's? Not very practical for most. BTW, the 900 MHz ham band is mostly narrow now, because most of the gear is narrow. But a lot of the repeaters use a wide rx (converted from 800), and adjust levels to compensate. So you can go in either wide or narrow, and be heard adequately. Of course that doesn't answer the adjacent channel issue. You don't see 900 repeaters closer than 25 KHZ in the same area anyway, because there's no need to. Maybe a wide PL and narrow PL? Does narrow banding offer us > anything in improvements? Will it help us in noisy RF sites? On the contrary, most experience from the LMR sector has seen just the opposite-slightly less over all range. While it's true that a narrower IF will result in a lower noise floor, the reduction in modulation index will more then offset it, causing a lower over all 'information' to noise radio. > Can we teach or make kits for users to modify their rigs? Not possible for any made-for-ham gear in the last 15 years or so that doesn't already have the IF filters. Just too hard to change. > Not looking for a flame war, just stimulating some positive discussion. :) > > -Kevin That's the idea!
