Re: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[W2AGN]

Scott Manthe wrote:
> Eric killed this thread. Please take the debate to email.
> 

Hey, I missed the part where he appointed you to the List Police. Sorry I didn't
see it, and congratulations.
-- 
John - W2AGN
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Re: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[Scott Manthe]

Eric killed this thread. Please take the debate to email.

Brett gazdzinski wrote:

 No, I think if they would want to stay on the band,
they would narrow it down.
Its not a fixed thing, its all about audio bandwidth
(and low distortion). You just cut the high end and balance out
the lows.

Or, maybe they would occupy the ESSB window and chat about
it.

Often on 80 and 40 meters in the morning on weekends
(when I operate) the east coast is open.

40 meters can really cook with AM on 7285, 7290, and 7295,
with low power guys booming in, 25 to 50 watts carrier, not 
lately, 80 seems to be more open at this point of the sunspot

cycle.

I just think the bandwidth part of it is a bogus issue, if you are
only interested in packing in QSO's, CW or digital modes is
much better than voice.

I don't give a hoot about ESSB, it still sounds much worse
than good AM, but I don't see a problem with people making it
sound a bit more pleasant to listen to while rag chewing.
 
I think you could communicate with a 1500 Hz bandwidth,

say 500 to 2000 Hz, maybe everyone should be restricted to that
at all times?

The typical outsider would hear that and run, asking why 
ANYONE would want to listen to that noise.


Brett
N2DTS

  

___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft


Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

RE: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[Brett gazdzinski]

 No, I think if they would want to stay on the band,
they would narrow it down.
Its not a fixed thing, its all about audio bandwidth
(and low distortion). You just cut the high end and balance out
the lows.

Or, maybe they would occupy the ESSB window and chat about
it.

Often on 80 and 40 meters in the morning on weekends
(when I operate) the east coast is open.

40 meters can really cook with AM on 7285, 7290, and 7295,
with low power guys booming in, 25 to 50 watts carrier, not 
lately, 80 seems to be more open at this point of the sunspot
cycle.

I just think the bandwidth part of it is a bogus issue, if you are
only interested in packing in QSO's, CW or digital modes is
much better than voice.

I don't give a hoot about ESSB, it still sounds much worse
than good AM, but I don't see a problem with people making it
sound a bit more pleasant to listen to while rag chewing.
 
I think you could communicate with a 1500 Hz bandwidth,
say 500 to 2000 Hz, maybe everyone should be restricted to that
at all times?

The typical outsider would hear that and run, asking why 
ANYONE would want to listen to that noise.

Brett
N2DTS


> 
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Brett gazdzinski wrote:
> 
> >
> > Around here, 80 meters has about 3 qso's on the entire band
> > in the daytime, so what is the problem running essb or other modes?
> 
> And you're quite sure that as evening approaches, and more 
> folks come on the 
> air, that the essb stations will close up shop in the spirit 
> of cooperation?
> 
> Or if you don't think they will, then who will "suggest" to 
> them that they 
> become neighborly?
> 
> >
> > Its bad and rude to operate in a wide mode when bands are
> > crowded, that's a given, but to say something is bad and
> > cant ever be done below 28 MHz seems wrong.
> 
> Not really, making a statement that wide and inefficient 
> communications modes 
> that may be a nusiance to US hams, and are at odds with the 
> regulations of other 
> countries, should be used only above 28 mHz makes a lot of 
> sense...unless one 
> has a personal agenda to use them in crowded bands.
> 
> 73 k3hrn
> Thom,EIEIO
> Email, Internet, Electronic Information Officer
> 
> www.baltimorehon.com/Home of the Baltimore Lexicon
> www.tlchost.net/hosting/ Web Hosting as low 
> as 3.49/month
> 

___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Re: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB? (And Pactor III) [END of Thread]

[Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ, Elecraft]

Guys - This is the official END the ESSB thread. We've exceeded our 
threshold for an excessive number of postings on a topic in 24 hours by 
a WIDE margin. ;-)


Please, no more arguments pro/con on this topic to the list.

Also, please let's avoid a protracted thread on the pros/cons of Pactor III.

73, Eric   WA6HHQ
Elecraft List Moderator
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft


Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

RE: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[Ralph Tyrrell]

Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

These concerns about using excessive bandwidth are all
certainly  legitimate, but history suggests that
anyone seriously against using more bandwidth/signal
in crowded bands needs to take a different approach or
their concerns will not be heard.  . . . . .
Nonetheless, it was and the 40 meter AM 'phone' band
segment opened in  the USA in the 1950's ending that
band's 300 kHz of CW-only 0peration. . . . . .
-
Ron: 
I remember loosing a part of the 40 M band, it was sad
but I only had one xtal for 40 M for 7035 KHz.

A few years later I had a Central Electronics 20A. I
ran into several operators who stated "my receiver
will not tune SSB".

Change is what we have to put up with, someone will
always have a better way of communicating on our
amateur bands. We need to be hospitable to these new
ideas until they go away, or prove themselves.
It is great that we have so many choices now. The K3
is also a good choice.

For the last four years I have been 100% CW with my
K1, the only HF rig I have on the air. I have plans to
build a K2 this fall, with SSB adaptor. I feel I need
some change also.

73, Ty, W1TF K1 #1423



  

Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the 
Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ 
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

RE: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

These concerns about using excessive bandwidth are all certainly legitimate,
but history suggests that anyone seriously against using more
bandwidth/signal in crowded bands needs to take a different approach or
their concerns will not be heard. 

The same sort of arguments I'm reading in this thread - efficient use of
spectrum - has come up before when a wide-band mode was proposed for 40
meters: a mode that would allow each station to use the bandwidth currently
used by four, five or even more signals currently on the band. 

Editorials and letters ranted against the terrible waste, the destruction of
Amateur radio and ruination of a great Ham band if this new mode were
allowed. 

Nonetheless, it was and the 40 meter AM 'phone' band segment opened in the
USA in the 1950's ending that band's 300 kHz of CW-only operation.
"Efficient" CW operators had to get out of the way. Their one consideration
was that they could, legally, operate in the phone segment while the phone
operators ("phony Hams" some called them back then) were restricted to their
sub-band. 

Elecraft has taken what I think is a very conservative and reasonable
approach to providing ESSB capability. They have designed the K3 to limit
the ESSB signal to no more than 6 kHz. In one post some time ago, Wayne
mentioned that it would likely be "less" than 6 kHz. Some SSB operators may
feel that's too wide, but 6 kHz is used by double-sideband AM operators on
those bands today. So, for those who want to try ESSB, they won't be using
any more spectrum that the current crop of double-sideband AM operators. 

Keep in mind that running ESSB is useless unless *both* stations in a QSO
are ESSB capable. The receiver in a conventional SSB rig simply cuts the
signal down to a normal SSB bandwidth. And the K3 will not run ESSB unless
the optional 6 kHz filter is purchased. 

Anyone who has followed Elecraft over the years knows that they have been
very conscious about ensuring their transmitters are exceptionally clean,
meeting or exceeding both current regulations and the current practice for
signals on the Ham bands. 

For those who are serious about preventing the use of ESSB on at least some
bands, history suggests that an argument other than "efficient use of the
spectrum" will be needed.

I operate CW 99% of the time. It's by far my favorite mode. I'm gratified to
note that bunches of CW ops do not "set up shop" in the middle of the phone
bands, even though they could do so legally to avoid the mayhem of a contest
or just because it might please them to do so. Traditionally, most Hams have
been considerate operators even if they don't agree with another's choice of
modes. That means doing the "right thing" even though one might disagree
intensely with others. I would hope that spirit continues. 

Ron AC7AC 

___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

RE: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[Thom LaCosta]

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Brett gazdzinski wrote:



Around here, 80 meters has about 3 qso's on the entire band
in the daytime, so what is the problem running essb or other modes?


And you're quite sure that as evening approaches, and more folks come on the 
air, that the essb stations will close up shop in the spirit of cooperation?


Or if you don't think they will, then who will "suggest" to them that they 
become neighborly?




Its bad and rude to operate in a wide mode when bands are
crowded, that's a given, but to say something is bad and
cant ever be done below 28 MHz seems wrong.


Not really, making a statement that wide and inefficient communications modes 
that may be a nusiance to US hams, and are at odds with the regulations of other 
countries, should be used only above 28 mHz makes a lot of sense...unless one 
has a personal agenda to use them in crowded bands.


73 k3hrn
Thom,EIEIO
Email, Internet, Electronic Information Officer

www.baltimorehon.com/Home of the Baltimore Lexicon
www.tlchost.net/hosting/ Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft


Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Re: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[Julian G4ILO]

On 8/13/07, Brett gazdzinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Around here, 80 meters has about 3 qso's on the entire band
> in the daytime, so what is the problem running essb or other modes?
>
> Its bad and rude to operate in a wide mode when bands are
> crowded, that's a given, but to say something is bad and
> cant ever be done below 28 MHz seems wrong.
>

That's because the D layer absorption means your signals on 80m won't
travel very far at that time of day. If you live in a rural area there
may not be many stations on the air within reach at that time. It
might not be the same in a densely populated area, though.

Unfortunately it's hard to make rules that allow something to be done
only when it doesn't affect something else. Once you start to condone
wide band modes on the LF and HF bands people will use them whether
the bands are crowded or not.
-- 
Julian, G4ILO K2 s/n: 392  K3 s/n: ???
G4ILO's Shack: www.g4ilo.com
Ham-Directory: www.ham-directory.com
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

RE: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[Brett gazdzinski]

 
Around here, 80 meters has about 3 qso's on the entire band 
in the daytime, so what is the problem running essb or other modes?

Its bad and rude to operate in a wide mode when bands are
crowded, that's a given, but to say something is bad and
cant ever be done below 28 MHz seems wrong.

Brett
N2DTS


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Julian G4ILO
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 4:35 AM
> To: elecraft
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?
> 
> On 8/13/07, Brett gazdzinski 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Another thing that interests me is that I listen at night
> > and there are a bunch of the usual suspects talking
> > about nothing for the most part (80 meters).
> > Its so important to fit a few more appliance operators
> > on the band to talk with friends about their pickup truck
> > that you have to rain on others parade?
> >
> > That's hardly vital communications.
> >
> 
> Neither are contest exchanges, getting a "59" from a DX station to add
> another prefix to the list, or digimoders exchanging their Windows OS
> version and the model number of their RigBlaster. Let's not go there.
> 
> I thought the argument was about using spectrum space efficiently.
> There are bands where it would be perfectly OK, license conditions
> aside, to use ESSB - anywhere above 28MHz springs to mind - but 80
> metres isn't it. It doesn't matter what people want to talk about,
> anyone using more bandwidth than they need just to have nicer-sounding
> audio which is not essential to the actual conveying of information is
> just being plain selfish, on a band where clear frequencies are
> already hard to find.
> 
> -- 
> Julian, G4ILO K2 s/n: 392  K3 s/n: ???
> G4ILO's Shack: www.g4ilo.com
> Ham-Directory: www.ham-directory.com
> ___
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
>  http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> 
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
> 

___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Re: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[R. Kevin Stover]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

I'll second that and add ANY HF band below 30MHz.
Ever notice nobody ever complains about the guys running real AM? It
always seems to be the ESSB Harry Cary wannabes getting in trouble with
splatter, QRMing ongoing QSO's, etc


Julian G4ILO wrote:
> On 8/13/07, Brett gazdzinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Another thing that interests me is that I listen at night
>> and there are a bunch of the usual suspects talking
>> about nothing for the most part (80 meters).
>> Its so important to fit a few more appliance operators
>> on the band to talk with friends about their pickup truck
>> that you have to rain on others parade?
>>
>> That's hardly vital communications.
>>
> 
> Neither are contest exchanges, getting a "59" from a DX station to add
> another prefix to the list, or digimoders exchanging their Windows OS
> version and the model number of their RigBlaster. Let's not go there.
> 
> I thought the argument was about using spectrum space efficiently.
> There are bands where it would be perfectly OK, license conditions
> aside, to use ESSB - anywhere above 28MHz springs to mind - but 80
> metres isn't it. It doesn't matter what people want to talk about,
> anyone using more bandwidth than they need just to have nicer-sounding
> audio which is not essential to the actual conveying of information is
> just being plain selfish, on a band where clear frequencies are
> already hard to find.
> 

- --
R. Kevin Stover, ACØH
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGwENo11jxjloa2wsRAinOAJ9FYgEK5p9XAxSBegF/dzRghj+ugQCgkCMQ
M8Djj1EsvF/eDOcWFiijj9w=
=/4mV
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Re: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[N2EY]

In a message dated 8/12/07 9:52:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


> I don't understand why anyone would get upset or even care 
> about essb (or AM), if its done on a band that is not packed
> with signals.
> 

The problem is, it's not always done on a band with lots of room.

73 de Jim, N2EY


**
 Get a sneak peek of the 
all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Re: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[Julian G4ILO]

On 8/13/07, Brett gazdzinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Another thing that interests me is that I listen at night
> and there are a bunch of the usual suspects talking
> about nothing for the most part (80 meters).
> Its so important to fit a few more appliance operators
> on the band to talk with friends about their pickup truck
> that you have to rain on others parade?
>
> That's hardly vital communications.
>

Neither are contest exchanges, getting a "59" from a DX station to add
another prefix to the list, or digimoders exchanging their Windows OS
version and the model number of their RigBlaster. Let's not go there.

I thought the argument was about using spectrum space efficiently.
There are bands where it would be perfectly OK, license conditions
aside, to use ESSB - anywhere above 28MHz springs to mind - but 80
metres isn't it. It doesn't matter what people want to talk about,
anyone using more bandwidth than they need just to have nicer-sounding
audio which is not essential to the actual conveying of information is
just being plain selfish, on a band where clear frequencies are
already hard to find.

-- 
Julian, G4ILO K2 s/n: 392  K3 s/n: ???
G4ILO's Shack: www.g4ilo.com
Ham-Directory: www.ham-directory.com
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

RE: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[Brett gazdzinski]

 I don't understand why anyone would get upset or even care 
about essb (or AM), if its done on a band that is not packed
with signals.
If there is loads of space, what is wrong with making the audio
sound at least as good as a cheap cell phone?

On the AM side, on the east coast of the US, the AM guys
stick in a very small window and put a lot of operators
on one frequency, yes they may take up a lot of bandwidth,
but there may be 8 to 10 guys on frequency and many more 
listening.
Some SWL people find AM interesting, as ssb was not
much of an option on many receivers.
That gets people interested in ham radio, that is what
got ME interested in ham radio, many years ago with a poor receiver.

I have designed and built my entire AM station, with 3
separate transmitters and 2 receivers.
Besides the K2, I have no commercial gear except
a Collins 32V3 in the shack.

How many design and build there own high power
multi-band SSB rigs?
My guess would be not that many.
Many AM operators restore old gear or homebrew
tube or class E stuff, and LEARN electronics, even
if its out of date.
I think people should be free to learn things and not just
operate telephone sounding rigs they mail order.

Another thing that interests me is that I listen at night 
and there are a bunch of the usual suspects talking 
about nothing for the most part (80 meters).
Its so important to fit a few more appliance operators
on the band to talk with friends about their pickup truck
that you have to rain on others parade?

That's hardly vital communications.

I don't understand why people cant play with their radio
stuff without others getting all wound up about it.
Live and let live...

Oh, ever listen on FM mode on a busy band?
Tons of noise and garbage, I don't think you can use
FM unless you have a very low QRM level.


Brett
N2DTS



> 
> The question I ask is this:
> 
> What about FM? I really like FM voice. Sounds really good, 
> the equipment is 
> simple and there's a lot of it in use by amateurs and others. 
> 
> Why can't I run FM voice that's 15 or 20 kHz wide on 75 
> meters? I think it 
> would sound really, really good. Much better than even AM, 
> and immune to summer 
> QRN. The transmitter would be very efficient, modulated at 
> low level and 
> amplified in highly efficient Class E stages that are very 
> simple and don't have to 
> be amplitude-linear at all. I'd be experimenting with new things. 
> 
> What's the problem?
> 
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
> 
> 
> **
>  Get a sneak peek of the 
> all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
> ___
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
>  http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> 
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
> 

___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Re: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[Thom LaCosta]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Marvelous idea...logical too...and flies in the face of operating
efficiently.


How so? The transmitter would be more efficient. If it's OK to use 6 to 9 kHz
for ESSB, why not 15 or 20 kHz for FM?


Ah good point...and once 20 kHz is established, we can go for subcarriers to 
handle various types of data




But, that notwithstanding, with limited spectrum space available, even
after the
expansion of the phone bands, why are we considering reducing the number of
channels available, by increasing the bandwidth?


I like how 15-20 kHz wide FM sounds. Why can't I use it?


Well, I feel good when I releive abdominal and/or bladder pressure.  Why can't I 
do it anytime I want in public?




If they don't want us to drive us fast, why do they make such cars? And why
do the speedometers go up so high?


'Cause consumers can be dumb as a box of rocks?  Maybe it's a male thing 
(remember the fins on cars, and the protuding front grilles?). Of course there 
is the axiom "Mo' is bettah".




(devil's advocate mode = off)


Wow, another religious statment...

73 k3hrn
Thom,EIEIO
Email, Internet, Electronic Information Officer

www.baltimorehon.com/Home of the Baltimore Lexicon
www.tlchost.net/hosting/ Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft


Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

RE: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[Thom LaCosta]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Craig Rairdin wrote:


(Sorry, I argue religion for a living)


Although it's off topic, I wonder how many angels can operate QRP on the head of 
a pin?


73 k3hrn
Thom,EIEIO
Email, Internet, Electronic Information Officer


www.baltimorehon.com/Home of the Baltimore Lexicon
www.tlchost.net/hosting/ Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft


Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

RE: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[Craig Rairdin]

As a CW op with no dog in this race, I wonder what makes splashing a 2.1 KHz
to 2.7 KHz wide voice signal across the band morally right but 6 KHz or more
morally wrong. Are those who are opposed to 6 KHz-wide SSB doing everything
they can to narrow their bandwidth down to as few hz as possible? That is,
is anyone working on NSSB (narrow SSB) out of a sense of moral outrage over
everyone wasting all that bandwidth at 2.x KHz? If not, then isn't the whole
argument just a spitting contest with no technical or moral merit?

(Sorry, I argue religion for a living and it's often the case that the
opposition is practicing the very thing they're arguing against, just in a
different direction or order of magnitude. I can't help but wonder if the
same logic doesn't apply here.)

Craig
NZ0R

___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Re: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[N2EY]

In a message dated 8/12/07 8:47:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


> The SSB bandwidth 2007 realities, sound familiar.
> In 1978 - max bandwith over telephonic modems,
> and conditioned AT&T lines was like 6250 baud.
> A "limit" everyone agreed.

But was it a theoretical limit, or a practical limit? Or
was it just a standard so that the industry could move
forward?

> 
> Then some clever soul or group, came up with
> quadrature modulation - and rather quietly,
> modems into the hot-copper telephone lines
> of 52kbaud became a reality.
> 

Hmm

I seem to remember that there were a whole bunch of steps
in there...14.4, 28.8, 33, and then two different flavors of
"56K" modems...

I remember my first serious PC dialing up AOL, and 
geting different connection speeds depending on the
quality of the lines. My old house on RadioTelegraph Hill
in Upper Darby had an old paper/lead cable, and the
connect speed depended on the weather. When they 
finally replaced the cable, about 1998, it was much better.

> Similiarly, perhaps HF comms SSB, needs to
> rethink its SSB modulation approach, to allow wider
> more naturally sounding voice comms, and still
> not take up unnecessary bandwidth, beyone which
> supposedly 2.7khz now consumes.

Well, there's the NBVM idea of thirty years ago. Never really
caught on, though.

 (when do we
> 
> start talking about amplifiers?)
> 

I suspect that a lot of the complaints about "SSB sounds bad" are
really due to hearing distortion products in the audio, not limited
bandwidth.

> This topic, started as an attempt to learn
> technically what ESSB was all about, in
> its application to Amateur Radio.  Never
> learned anything, except everyone is
> against it.

Did you go to the websites mentioned here and read
what they had to say?

Here's a synopsis:

Some folks don't like how typical amateur SSB sounds.

They think the typical 2.1 to 2.7 kHz amateur SSB voice
signal sounds bad. 

They think you need more audio bandwidth for a good sounding SSB voice
signal.

So they've modified their rigs to transmit and receive SSB voice at much 
greater bandwidths. 6 kHz and wider are commonly used.

That means their signals take up much more of the band than a typical amateur 
SSB signal. Two, three, four or more times what typical ham SSB signals use.

Other hams don't like them using so much of the band for one SSB voice 
signal.
These other hams say it's good amateur practice not to use more of the band 
than
needed for the mode in use.
> 
> PLEASE close this topic, and wait out our
> K3 purchase.  I have no interest in bandwidth
> debates or reasons, rather just what they
> have been working on in SSB techniques. 

Other folks *do* have an interest. 

 I'm
> 
> sure the FCC, and ARRL will reign us in, if
> we stray.
> 

The ARRL can only advise what is and is not good practice.

FCC has essentially said they don't really see the point of ESSB.

The big threat to all of us is that we could wind up with more-restrictive
regulations that we don't like, because of the actions of a few.

73 de Jim, N2EY




**
 Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Re: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[N2EY]

In a message dated 8/12/07 12:32:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > Why can't I run FM voice that's 15 or 20 kHz wide on 75 meters? I think it
> > would sound really, really good. Much better than even AM, and 

>immune to summer
> 
> > QRN. The transmitter would be very efficient, modulated at low level and
> > amplified in highly efficient Class E stages that are very simple and 
> don't have to
> > be amplitude-linear at all. I'd be experimenting with new things.
> 
> Marvelous idea...logical too...and flies in the face of operating 
> efficiently. 

How so? The transmitter would be more efficient. If it's OK to use 6 to 9 kHz 
for ESSB, why not 15 or 20 kHz for FM? 


> But, that notwithstanding, with limited spectrum space available, even 
> after the
> expansion of the phone bands, why are we considering reducing the number of 
> channels available, by increasing the bandwidth?

I like how 15-20 kHz wide FM sounds. Why can't I use it? 
> 
> Arguments in favor of creating wider than required signals remind me of 
> folks 
> who buy a car with a huge engine and then insist they be allowed to drive at 
> no 
> less than 90 mph.
> 

If they don't want us to drive us fast, why do they make such cars? And why 
do the speedometers go up so high? 

(devil's advocate mode = off)

73 de Jim, N2EY




**
 Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

RE: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[Thom LaCosta]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Dale Putnam wrote:



Can you see it now? Since all the bandwidth is used up on 75, and the 
digital/cw crowd has
learned to live in a smaller space, and they don't make much noise, or take up 
a lot of room, they can learn to live in less, this month, less next month, and none next year.
Then we can show em,`there won't be any room for intelligent, creative, or 
progressive conversation, or progress at all.--... ...--


I hadn't thought of it that waybut I think there's hope...someone had posted 
that if we screwed up with ESSB, that the FCC and ARRL would step right in and 
fix it all.


I'm not sure is most frightening, having someone show up saying:

"I'm from the gubmint, and I'm here to help you."
or
"I'm from the ARRL and I'm here to help you."

I'm still trying to get in through my thick skull how we hams can push for a 
dimunation of efficiency that would not only reduce our channels, but cause
problems for hams in other countries where the telecommunications regulators 
have the sense to outlaw excessively wide emissions.


Now I'm begining to wonder if there will be a clamor for the K3 to offer 11 
meters and aboveafter all, the rights of the freebanders must be respected.


10-4 Good Buddy...I got the antler pointing yer way and gonna kick in the 
leanyer and the Enhanced Side Band.


73-k3hrn
Thom,EIEIO
Email, Internet, Electronic Information Officer

www.baltimorehon.com/Home of the Baltimore Lexicon
www.tlchost.net/hosting/ Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft


Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Re: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[Thom LaCosta]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Why can't I run FM voice that's 15 or 20 kHz wide on 75 meters? I think it
would sound really, really good. Much better than even AM, and immune to summer
QRN. The transmitter would be very efficient, modulated at low level and
amplified in highly efficient Class E stages that are very simple and don't 
have to
be amplitude-linear at all. I'd be experimenting with new things.


Marvelous idea...logical too...and flies in the face of operating efficiently. 
But, that notwithstanding, with limited spectrum space available, even after the
expansion of the phone bands, why are we considering reducing the number of 
channels available, by increasing the bandwidth?


Arguments in favor of creating wider than required signals remind me of folks 
who buy a car with a huge engine and then insist they be allowed to drive at no 
less than 90 mph.


73 thom
Thom,EIEIO
Email, Internet, Electronic Information Officer

www.baltimorehon.com/Home of the Baltimore Lexicon
www.tlchost.net/hosting/ Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft


Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Re: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[David Woolley]

Fred (FL) wrote:

In 1978 - max bandwith over telephonic modems,
and conditioned AT&T lines was like 6250 baud.
A "limit" everyone agreed.


Shannon's classic paper on communications theory was published in 1948,
so, for 30 years before 1978, anyone who knew the signal to noise ratio
and did the maths would have known that that was not the limit.  What
they were probably actually saying is that that was the limit for pure
quadrature phase modulation, or, maybe for economically realisable
hardware at the time.

Incidentally, there now is a hard limit, because the telphone network
core is digital, and you cannot exceed 64kbps (or in the USA, with
robbed bit signalling, slightly less than that).  At that time, the
limit would have depended on the signal to noise ratio.  SNR would
depend on the line.

(The telcos don't allow modems to run as fast as they could, because
that would compromise the analogue parts of the network, hence a 56,
rather than 64kbs, limit.)


--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.

___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft


Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Re: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[Tom Hammond]

Hi Brandon:

I'm pretty sure we've managed to work out all of the T3 through T7 'qualities'
of the K3... right now, it's as clean as any rig I've ever heard.

73,

Tom   N0SS

At 07:47 08/12/2007, Brendan Minish wrote:

ESSB is just dreadful and like in Germany is probably not legal in EI
where our rules seem to define SSB as 2.7 Khz or less .

However is the k3 capable of ECW (enhanced CW)? I would like some nice
wide clicks and a 'phat' rough tone to help me keep some space around me
in a contest and stand out in a pileup.

TNX UR 593 ;-)

73
Brendan EI6IZ



___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com


___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft


Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Re: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[David Woolley]

Fred (FL) wrote:

The SSB bandwidth 2007 realities, sound familiar.


Yes, this sort of false reasoning is common in marketing.  They rely on 
a perception that anything new to the market must be better, and that 
the general public doesn't understand the true reasons for limitations.



In 1978 - max bandwith over telephonic modems,
and conditioned AT&T lines was like 6250 baud.


The maximum baud rate over telephone lines with the standard analogue 
telephony bandwith is about 2400, and still is.



A "limit" everyone agreed.

Then some clever soul or group, came up with
quadrature modulation - and rather quietly,


6250 bps is not possible without at least the use of quadrature 
modulation.  I think the limit for that is 4800 (although it might just 
be 2400).  I guess, if you pushed the bandwidth to the limit, you might 
get 3125 baud, and therefore 6250 bps with quadrature modulation.



modems into the hot-copper telephone lines


The limits were not set by the copper, but by the SSB carrier systems 
used on the trunks between exchanges (central offices).  Their bandwidth 
was set to the minimum needed for the general public to consider the 
quality acceptable for speech.



of 52kbaud became a reality.


What actually happened is that it became possible to  manufacture 
digital signal processors cheaply enough to use them in telephone 
modems, and that made it possible to use echo cancellation and advanced 
equalisation algorithms.  In addition, it required that the transmission 
path from the local office to the service provider be all digital.  The 
modems now attempt to select every possible quantisation level in every 
sample on the digital bearer - this relies on the remote end not having 
an analogue connection (they are only acting as a modem over the local 
loop in the downlink direction)!  The actual 56kbps limit is set by the 
characteristics of the PCM network, including  US robbed bit signalling 
and the need to avoid putting too much power into the equivalent 
analogue signal, thus not achieving the absolute limit of 64kbps.  The 
baud rate is actually 8k, but one gets away with that because the local 
loop analogue connections are not bandwidth limited.


Actually, because PCM phone connections are companded, some of the steps 
between quantisation levels are much smaller than others, so 56k modems 
 don't actually take full advantage of the signal to 
noise ratio.  Assuming the telephone SNR and that equalisation doesn't 
impose too much of a problem, an analogue radio channel should be able 
to achieve a lot more than 56kbps in 2.7kHz.


Also, a considerable time before this sort of modem became possible 
(and, I think, significantly before the enabling technology of PCM 
bearers became common) it became possible to transmit  communications 
quality speech over a 2400 bps connection.  That suggests that the true 
technical advance would be the transmission of amateur radio speech in 
about a thirtieth of the 2.7kHz, SSB, bandwidth, assuming landline 
telephone signal to noise ratios.


By comparison, there is really no new technology at all in using laxer 
SSB filters.




rethink its SSB modulation approach, to allow wider
more naturally sounding voice comms, and still
not take up unnecessary bandwidth, beyone which
supposedly 2.7khz now consumes. (when do we


It's the essence of SSB that it takes up the same bandwidth as the 
baseband signal!  To get more natural speech in less bandwidth, you have 
to basically treat the channel as being a digital one, and send a signal 
that takes advantage of the actual nature of speech signals (generally 
these use some sort of voice tract model).




--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft


Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Re: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[N2EY]

In a message dated 8/12/07 8:39:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


> What is the definition of ESSB, anything greater than 2.7kHz? My
> Orion2 can do up to 3000 I believe, so is this ESSB?
> 
> 

No.

THere's no hard-and-fast defintion of ESSB that I've seen. In practice, it 
means SSB 6 to 9 kHz wide or thereabouts.

IMHO, the justifications for ESSB boil down to these:

1) 'ESSB sounds "better" than regular SSB'. 

"Better", is of course in the ear of the beholder. The questions are, does 
the better sound come from the wider bandwidth or from other things, like less 
distortion? And does sounding better justify twice the bandwoth or more?

2) 'DSB AM with carrier typically takes up 6 to 9 kHz of the band. If it's OK 
for that kind of AM to take up 6 to 9 kHz, why isn't it OK for a different 
kind of AM to do the same?"

The answer is that DSB AM *has to* occupy that much space, by its very 
nature. SSB doesn't.

3) 'ESSB users are "experimenting" with new modes". 

That's a good thing, but does it justify the bandwidth? Particularly when 
decades of research have shown that voice comms need only 3 kHz maximum audio? 
Could other modes justify bandwidth-enhanced things like clicks and hum on that 
principle? 

4) 'There's no explicit rule limiting the bandwidth of an SSB signal.'

That's true - and it's a good thing. FCC has given US hams a lot of leeway in 
the regs, and has repeatedly avoided hard-and-fast technical rules on things 
like bandwidth out of trust that hams will 'do the right thing'. Abusing that 
trust is just begging for more and stricter regulations.

The question I ask is this:

What about FM? I really like FM voice. Sounds really good, the equipment is 
simple and there's a lot of it in use by amateurs and others. 

Why can't I run FM voice that's 15 or 20 kHz wide on 75 meters? I think it 
would sound really, really good. Much better than even AM, and immune to summer 
QRN. The transmitter would be very efficient, modulated at low level and 
amplified in highly efficient Class E stages that are very simple and don't 
have to 
be amplitude-linear at all. I'd be experimenting with new things. 

What's the problem?

73 de Jim, N2EY


**
 Get a sneak peek of the 
all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Re: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[Brendan Minish]

ESSB is just dreadful and like in Germany is probably not legal in EI
where our rules seem to define SSB as 2.7 Khz or less .

However is the k3 capable of ECW (enhanced CW)? I would like some nice
wide clicks and a 'phat' rough tone to help me keep some space around me
in a contest and stand out in a pileup.

TNX UR 593 ;-)

73
Brendan EI6IZ 

   

___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[Fred (FL)]

The SSB bandwidth 2007 realities, sound familiar.
In 1978 - max bandwith over telephonic modems,
and conditioned AT&T lines was like 6250 baud.
A "limit" everyone agreed.

Then some clever soul or group, came up with
quadrature modulation - and rather quietly,
modems into the hot-copper telephone lines
of 52kbaud became a reality.

Similiarly, perhaps HF comms SSB, needs to
rethink its SSB modulation approach, to allow wider
more naturally sounding voice comms, and still
not take up unnecessary bandwidth, beyone which
supposedly 2.7khz now consumes. (when do we
start talking about amplifiers?)

This topic, started as an attempt to learn
technically what ESSB was all about, in
its application to Amateur Radio.  Never
learned anything, except everyone is
against it.

PLEASE close this topic, and wait out our
K3 purchase.  I have no interest in bandwidth
debates or reasons, rather just what they
have been working on in SSB techniques.  I'm
sure the FCC, and ARRL will reign us in, if
we stray.

Fred
N3CSY


  

Shape Yahoo! in your own image.  Join our Network Research Panel today!   
http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 


___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Re: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[nealk3nc]

Interesting...

What is the definition of ESSB, anything greater than 2.7kHz? My
Orion2 can do up to 3000 I believe, so is this ESSB?

On 8/12/07, Toby Deinhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Note that there are *NO* FCC rules about the bandwidth of an SSB (or
> other)
> > signal that say a certain bandwidth is "illegal".
>
> Maybe not - I wouldn't know.
>
> However, here in DL ESSB and classical AM are illegal below 28MHz.
>
> The maximum allowed bandwidth between 1.81Mhz and 28MHz in the HAM bands
> is 2.7kHz, and the maximum Bandwidth in the 10m band is 7kHz.
> 
>   - pages 2 and 3.
>
> Also the IARU-Region 1 Band Plan does not "allow" more than 2.7 kHz
> below 29.2 MHz. 
>
> vy 73 de toby
> --
> DD5FZ, 4N6FZ (ex dj7mgq, dg5mgq, dd5fz)
> K2 #885, K2/100 #3248
> K3/100 #??? (< #200)
> DOK C12, BCC, DL-QRP-AG
> ___
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
>  http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
>
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Re: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[Toby Deinhardt]

Note that there are *NO* FCC rules about the bandwidth of an SSB (or other)
signal that say a certain bandwidth is "illegal".


Maybe not - I wouldn't know.

However, here in DL ESSB and classical AM are illegal below 28MHz.

The maximum allowed bandwidth between 1.81Mhz and 28MHz in the HAM bands 
is 2.7kHz, and the maximum Bandwidth in the 10m band is 7kHz. 
 
 - pages 2 and 3.


Also the IARU-Region 1 Band Plan does not "allow" more than 2.7 kHz 
below 29.2 MHz. 


vy 73 de toby
--
DD5FZ, 4N6FZ (ex dj7mgq, dg5mgq, dd5fz)
K2 #885, K2/100 #3248
K3/100 #??? (< #200)
DOK C12, BCC, DL-QRP-AG
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft


Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Re: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[David Woolley]

Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:


Note that there are *NO* FCC rules about the bandwidth of an SSB (or other)
signal that say a certain bandwidth is "illegal".


I would certainly agree with others that 6kHz SSB would be a 
contravention of the UK licence, although it might only be a SHOULD 
violation, rather than a MUST one.  It would also violate the voluntary 
band plans.


More importantly, it would seem to me a case of playing the marketing 
numbers game (bigger is better, in this case more bandwidth is better). 
 It does not represent pushing the limits of technology in any way. 
It's always been possible, but it has not been done (except possibly for 
broadcast and the transmission of broadcast quality signals over 
telephone carrier systems) because it is bad engineering for a speech 
communications system.  Whilst amateur radio users may think they are in 
the forefront by using this, they are far from it.


Incidentally, a not much larger bandwidth is the basis of both analogue 
and PCM telephony, and pre-PCM telephone carrier systems used SSB on the 
wire.  The nominal maximum frequency for analogue telephony is 3.4kHz. 
That allows a respectable guard band when channelised into 4kHz 
channels. PCM telephony is based on a sample rate of 8 kHz, which gives 
the same channel width of 4kHz, reducing to the typical 3.4kHz maximum 
when you apply realistic anti-aliasing filters.




ESSB, properly done as the K3 does it, uses no more spectrum than AM phone,
which is perfectly within the normal amateur practice on the phone bands.
(Actually, the last I heard, the K3 ESSB mode occupies *less* than the 6 kHz
of a normal AM phone signal). 


Generally, double sideband full carrier transmissions are permitted 
because of grandfathering (i.e. the process by which regulations permit 
the continued use of obsolete standards, even though they don't comply 
with the current technical requirements).  There is also, probably a 
certain element of the self training aspect of amateur radio as well, in 
that it permits someone to self construct a very simple transmitter 
(although I think the expectation would be that such transmitters would 
never be used with more than a few watts of output, these days).


Incidentally, historically amateur DSB full carrier transmissions 
haven't had tight bandwidth control, so the 6kHz is more a statement 
about where most of the power is in the speech spectrum.  I suspect that 
 broadcast transmissions, these days, are tightly filtered, although 
that leaves one with the interesting position that the channelisation of 
shortwave broadcasts means that the equivalent SSB bandwidth is actually 
less than 2.7kHz!




One of the important activities we Hams participate in is experimenting with
various signal formats (or "modes" if you prefer). Fortunately, our licenses


I really don't see that there is anything to experiment about here.  If 
you want to experiment, look for ways of improving speech communication 
in the current or lower bandwidths, and specifically in the context of 
high noise, interference and frequency selective fading; if the signal 
cannot tolerate these, it should be experimented with over wired 
connections.  I would use the word "play", instead.



PS Don, I think you meant troll, not phish.  Phishing is attempting to 
find finance related access control credentials by pretending to be the 
organisation with which you would legitimately use them.


--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft


Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Re: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[David Pratt]

In a recent message, Ron D'Eau Claire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote ...

One of the important activities we Hams participate in is experimenting with
various signal formats (or "modes" if you prefer). Fortunately, our licenses
in most countries give us a lot of latitude about what is legal. Certainly
the USA is a very lenient country in that regard.


In the UK our licence states.

"The bandwidth of emissions should be such as to ensure the most 
efficient utilisation of the spectrum. In general this requires that 
bandwidths be kept to the lowest values which technology and the nature 
of the service permits."


To me that means 2.7kHz wide ssb is more efficient that 6kHz ;-)

73
--
David G4DMP
Leeds, England, UK
--


___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft


Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

RE: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

> If you'd like to read one of many reasonably balanced views 
> of the use of ESSB, check this web site. I don't know the 
> fellow, but from what I've read of his site, I agree with him.
> 
> http://www.icycolors.com/nu9n/apologetics_2.html
> 
> But then, I tend to agree with most who speak in terms of 
> moderation...

That site is full of misinformation and is hardly "moderation." 

Many years ago AT&T (Bell Labs) proved rather conclusively that 
an audio bandwidth of less than 3 KHz (generally about 2.4 - 2.7 
KHz) was all that was necessary for reasonable "communications 
quality" or "tool grade" voice.  Most communications services - 
including government HF voice circuits and the US amateur rules 
for 60 Meters - are based on 2.5 KHz "Channels" (2K4J3E USB with 
a slight "guard band").  That makes a very good standard against 
which to judge "minimum necessary bandwidth" - particularly on a 
crowded band.  There is no communications requirement for a 6 (or 
even 5) KHz audio bandwidth - that's equivalent to the old "remote 
broadcast lines" that Ma Bell made available only on a limited 
basis through much of the history of analog telephony.  

Anyone who makes the "AM requires 6 KHz" argument is comparing 
apples and oranges.  6 KHz AM (6K00A3E) represents a highest 
modulating frequency of 3 KHz - comparable to 2K70J3E!  Most 
amateurs will relax the minimum bandwidth a little and accept 
2.7 or 2.8 KHz vs. 2.4 KHz at the 6 dB points.  That represents 
an audio response of 200 Hz or 300 Hz to 3 KHz.  However, there 
is no intelligent reading of Part 97 that supports (justifies) 
the use of 4K00J3E, 5K00J3E or 6K00J3E any more than it will 
support 8K00A3E (8 KHz wide AM - 100 Hz  to 4 KHz audio) or 
10K00A3E (10 KHz wide AM - 100 Hz to 5 KHz audio).  
 
The ESSB argument is nothing more than a small group of individuals 
saying "I will do it because I have the technology to do it."  
That's the same as saying "I'm going to drive 160 MPH on the 
interstate because my car can go that fast."  It's a dangerous, 
selfish and short sighted attitude.  

73, 

   ... Joe, W4TV 
 

___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

RE: [Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

Oh my, I hope not 

Shades of 14178    terrible amateur 
practice, and ... at times ... patently illegal.

73! Ken Kopp - K0PP
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

--

The ESSB the K3 transmits is perfectly in keeping with normal Amateur
practice. 

Note that there are *NO* FCC rules about the bandwidth of an SSB (or other)
signal that say a certain bandwidth is "illegal".

ESSB, properly done as the K3 does it, uses no more spectrum than AM phone,
which is perfectly within the normal amateur practice on the phone bands.
(Actually, the last I heard, the K3 ESSB mode occupies *less* than the 6 kHz
of a normal AM phone signal). 

If you haven't listened to ESSB on a good ESSB receiver when conditions are
good, you're missing a treat. 

It's true that narrow-band SSB will get "communications" through where ESSB
won't under bad conditions but, in my mind, that does not make ESSB any less
of a mode, just as SSB isn't any less of an acceptable mode just because it
occupies many times the bandwidth of a CW signal.

This is one of those subjects that has created a great many extreme (and
impolite) claims that the practice is "illegal". Even though I'm a CW
operator, they are patiently nonsense to me. Perhaps it's because I've been
pounding brass long enough to remember absurd petitions half a century ago
to make "phone" illegal on the Ham bands because it took up too much
spectrum space! 

One of the important activities we Hams participate in is experimenting with
various signal formats (or "modes" if you prefer). Fortunately, our licenses
in most countries give us a lot of latitude about what is legal. Certainly
the USA is a very lenient country in that regard. I would hope our Hams
could be as lenient as the FCC, but there are always extremists pounding on
their pulpits about the absurdity and unfairness of it all. It's their right
in our society to say those things. 

If you'd like to read one of many reasonably balanced views of the use of
ESSB, check this web site. I don't know the fellow, but from what I've read
of his site, I agree with him.

http://www.icycolors.com/nu9n/apologetics_2.html

But then, I tend to agree with most who speak in terms of moderation...

Ron AC7AC


___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[Ken Kopp]

Oh my, I hope not 

Shades of 14178    terrible amateur 
practice, and ... at times ... patently illegal.


73! Ken Kopp - K0PP
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft


Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Elecraft] Is the K3 capable of ESSB?

[Fred (FL)]

 Is the K3 capable of ESSB? 

The K3 FAQ indicate ESSB is possible, given one
has the correct filter(s) installed.

Does ESSB refer only to RECEIVED RX audio, in
the SSB mode?  It might be a dumb question -
but does full-ESSB mean, one can TRANSMIT
higher quality audio, in some sort of ESSB
TRANSMIT mode?  In other words, in a modern
SSB transceiver, like the K3, do we have
control over the bandwidth of SSB audio
going out over the antenna - beyond
the sacred 2.7Khz 3 db points of SSB
voice.

Can I transmit 4 khz width voice SSB, with my
K3?  Splatter, distortion in Tx?

 sounds intresting!

Fred, N3CSY


   

Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play 
Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
http://sims.yahoo.com/  
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com