In Part 96.113 Broadcasting and Music are specifically prohibited. The only justification for medium fidelity of high fidelity audio is for "broadcast" purposes ... in fact, licensees in the medium a
Thanks for the insight, Paul. I too was hoping this wouldn't happen, and in fact I said earlier I wasn't going to do this. However, when my two favorite modes are "trashed" and comments are made that
On the contrary, Joe. I can prove humans can tell the difference between certain letters, words, and sounds with 4k of audio that you can't with 2.5k. That has nothing to do with "broadcasting", eith
Joe, You might as well give up on this one. There is nowhere and I repeat nowhere in section 97 that says how much bandwidth you can use. You may not like it but as long as it meets spectral purity,
That's certainly true with very high S/N ratios on clear frequencies, assuming the people have normal hearing and speech. I can prove the best S/N ratio and readability when signal levels have less
I have done some experimenting with marginal S/N ratios as well. Still, it's easier to copy signals with significant content in the 3-4 kHz range than those with only 300-2.5k. I will be the first to
You may be able to prove that humans can distinguish certain letters, words and sounds with 4K audio that they can't with 2.5 K. That's not the issue. The issue is that Bell Labs and other competent
My suspicions are validated. tnx, Jim. R L MEASURES, AG6K. 805-386-3734 r@somis.org _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/m
I've heard a number of stations with an information rate that deserves a bandwidth of perhaps 100Hz. R L MEASURES, AG6K. 805-386-3734 r@somis.org _______________________________________________ Amps
excellent chortle! Ouch IMO, the FCC could not care less about amateur radio as long as we don't have any wardrobe malfunctions. cheers, Marv R L MEASURES, AG6K. 805-386-3734 r@somis.org ____________
For the sibilant sounds of speech, this is certainly the case. R L MEASURES, AG6K. 805-386-3734 r@somis.org _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http:
I want to strengthen the information that Joe has stated: In the days when telephone calls were sent inter-city by microwave, those signals were in the form of single-sideband signal frequency-modula
Has the modern standard for telephone bandwidth has stayed confined to the historical limits? _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contes
I agree with you in this case -- 300 to 3.3k (3 kHz total audio bandpass) isn't too bad. That's actually much better than most of you actually do on the HF Amateur bands (I hear 500-2.4k, or 1.9 kHz
Jim, I worked on military versions of those old, analog TDM multiplexing systems. One was called an "FCC-18", and was quite large. We had a more modern version of that on a second system I believe ma
There is a physiological reason for this and it also coincides with the broad resonance seen at approximately 3.5 kHz on the classic Fletcher-Munson family of loudness curves. The ear canal forms a
Amateur spectrum is only transiently scarce, Joe, and you know it. Most evenings out here on the west coast, 160, 75, and 40 meters SSB are desolate. If Art Bell and his buds want to crank open their
In this area we agree ... I have no problem with 300 to 3000 (2.7 KHz) or even 300 to 3300 (3 KHz) it is those who push it to 100 Hz to 4 KHz or even 20 Hz to 5 or 6 KHz that I find objectionable. Wh
Proclaiming that the bands are always packed all the time is a common error by those saying 4 or 6k of SSB is selfish & wasteful. One could make the argument that a band full of "You're 5-9....QRZ??"
This thread has been Bogarted so far it is ridiculous. Look at the subject line again. Arguing over high fidelity SSB is silly. There is nothing wrong using high fidelity as long as no interference i