> 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.
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
research facilities have long proven that communication is substantially
unimpaired in a 2.5 to 3 KHz bandwidth and additional bandwidth does
not contribute to significant improvement in reliability. The ITU and
national regulatory bodies have recognized that and have designed
most regulations around a 3 KHz bandwidth for voice.
> You show me what FCC rule says I can't run 4k of SSB audio in the
> Amateur spectrum given the available space, and I'll concede.
Perhaps the FCC hasn't explicitly stated that 4 KHz is "illegal" - I
believe the use of audio bandwidths greater than 3 KHz is not in
keeping with good engineering practice which would be in violation
of the rules. This is exactly why the ARRL proposal to regulate
emission by bandwidth is needed - to address both the "all knobs
to the right" and the selfish "I need 5 KHz audio" attitudes.
> Until then, you're wasting time and "bandwidth".
As you are wasting a far more scarce resource ... amateur spectrum.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|