[AMRadio] AMRadio Digest, Vol 119, Issue 59

[W. Harris]

Not propaganda at all Don. It seems that some have completely missed the
 point. Comments like, "then why even run phone at all just stick to CW 
and digital modes". That is a dumb statement. If only CW and digital 
modes were allowed, those modes certainly do take less and width and you
 certainly could crowd a lot more signals on the bands, but we don't 
just run CW and digital modes, we run voice modes as well. The point I 
have tried to make is to not take any more band width than necessary FOR
 THE MODE being used, that includes all voice modes like AM, SSB, and 
FM. To obtain "broadcast quality" only increases the bandwidth of the AM
 signal beyond what is necessary for good clear communications. Some
 hams now process their audio through audio mixers for more "hi-fi" 
quality on SSB, which only increased the bandwidth and is absolutely 
unnecessary and a waste on SSB. We don't need 10 kHz wide signals on the
 bands. 

Bill - K5MIL
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 16:12:53 -0600
> From: "Donald Chester" <k4kyv at charter.net>
> To: <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] AMRadio Digest, Vol 119, Issue 55
> Message-ID: <001001cefaab$f7b8ad30$e72a0790$@charter.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
> 
> 
> >>On Monday, December 16, 2013 1:04 PM, W. Harris <nbcblue at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>  
> I keep hearing people talk about broadcast quality in regards to ham radio
> AM transmissions. Why should anyone strive for such quality when the object
> is to communicate using no more band width than necessary? 
> 
> Bill - K5MIL
> ??? ???  ??? ?  ??? ??? ? >>
> 
> That sounds like SSB propaganda from the 1950s.