N3JI writes:
> 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 total audio bandpass
> often -- and even less than that on occasion!!).
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. When 20 Hz to 5 KHz
is coupled with double sideband AM, it is nothing more than pure hubris.
Given the receivers on the market with filters that have poor amplitude
and phase response even in a 2.7 - 3 KHz passband, "flattening" a
transmitter or extending it's range does absolutely nothing except
create additional interference to adjacent channel users at best and
allows fewer licensees to use the spectrum at worst. Rather than push
for wider bandwidth audio, concentrate on cleaning up what is there
and advocating for receivers with better filters (flatter passbands
and more even group delay characteristics).
73,
... Joe, W4TV
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|