[AMRadio] Re: GB> AM vs SSB???

[Bry Carling]

Well, I think Don already refuted all of this technically quite 
well, but the anti-AM remarks are rather subjective...
 
> Yes, this is the right group.  

No, this is not a group with the purpose of putting down, AM, Jim.

>But if we are discussing efficiency
> there is no doubt that SSB is more efficient, 

There is plenty of doubt. The reason aviation STILL uses 
AM is becaise the intelligibility is superior to FM and SSB
It's no good to be able to CLAIM something is "more efficient"
on paper, if the recipient iof th emessage is now dead because 
he misunderstood the loud, "efficient" signal..
It happens - there are examples.

> thus "waste time with the carrier.".  

Thus nothing of the kind.

> If we are talking audio quality, the two are equal if
> properly tuned, 

Maybe to you they are - but to plenty of other people, they are
not. The fidelity of a properly adjusted SSB signal is about half 
as good as a normal AM signal, and just sound worse to 
most people.

>  BUT we have to also  be dedicated to truth 

I don't think anyone has said otherwise.

>and  some of the noise I hear knocking SSB seems
> to think this is religion instead of science.  

No, not religion, but a matter of personal experience over 
46 years of amateur radio, using a very broad sampling 
of equipment for transmitting and receiving in my situation.
No religion is necessary.

> If it were religion I
> would have to pick one, but its science so I think I can pick "all of
> the above"  

False dichotomy. It's not either / or between two opposing 
positions. It is a matter of whether you can tell the difference 
between raspy SSB signals or smooth, pleasant AM. Simple as 
that.
Both certainly have their place. SSB is great for overdriven 
blathering about how many dog biscuits over 9 someone's
new linear is delivering on 75m.

>And be honest about the pros and cons. 

Are you saying that someone on here is being dishonest?
I certainly haven't seen it - nothing intentional anyway.