[Elecraft] An interested link

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

> "It's becoming more recognized that the improved fidelity of ESSB 
> has signal-to-noise advantages over the old traditional forms of 
> narrower SSB"
> 
> "... with the decline of new amateur radio operators to populate 
> the bands, the wider bandwidth necessary for high quality SSB is 
> not as much of an issue as it was 10 or 20 years ago."

Both of these "facts" are complete falsehoods and are the very 
reason that the FCC needs to define acceptable bandwidth 
based emission standards below 30 MHz.  Specifically, "SSB" 
should be limited to a 2800 Hz bandwidth consistent with other 
SSB based "communications" services regulated by the FCC and/or 
NTIA.  Similarly, AM - except for legacy equipment - should be 
limited to 6 KHz bandwidth.  In other words, the maximum 
modulating frequency should be set at 3 KHz - or no more than 
3200 Hz.   

There is no difference between those who operate "ESSB" (wide 
SSB) and those who continue to use transmitters with excessive 
key clicks and/or transmitted phase noise on CW.  Such operation 
is not consistent with "good engineering practice."  Those who 
want to operate wideband and hi-fi modes  should do so with 
wideband FM on frequencies above 440 MHz. 

73, 

   ... Joe, W4TV 
  




> -----Original Message-----
> From: elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net 
> [mailto:elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of David Gilbert
> Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 12:23 AM
> To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] An interested link
> 
> 
> 
> The History section of that web site applauds the fact that ESSB 
> enthusiasts have been able to push their 3 KHz bandwidth rigs 
> to 4 KHz 
> and beyond using external equalization, and it points out that the 
> leading edge for EESB is now moving past 6 KHz in transmitted 
> bandwidth 
> thanks to some of the new SDR rigs.  Here are a couple of 
> illuminating 
> and disturbing quotes:
> 
> "It's becoming more recognized that the improved fidelity of ESSB has 
> signal-to-noise advantages over the old traditional forms of 
> narrower SSB"
> 
> "... with the decline of new amateur radio operators to populate the 
> bands, the wider bandwidth necessary for high quality SSB is 
> not as much 
> of an issue as it was 10 or 20 years ago."
> 
> One of the hams lauded in that section for his work with ESSB 
> lived near 
> me when I was still in Scottsdale, and you could hear his splatter as 
> much as plus/minus 8 KHz when he was on the air with his 
> buddies on 20m 
> in the evening.  He was a casual friend of mine so I mentioned it to 
> him, and his dismissive answer was that he must be overdriving my rig 
> ... even though I told him that I had checked for that by 
> using a piece 
> of wire for an antenna to keep his signal below S7.  I often 
> monitored 
> those guys while I was doing work-related stuff on the 
> computer.  They 
> constantly tweaked their equalizers and critiqued the sound of each 
> other's modulation, but I never once heard any of them check 
> to see how 
> wide they were.
> 
> I have no problem at all with people experimenting with ESSB 
> as long as 
> they avoid interference with other activity on the band, but 
> promoting 
> ESSB as a mainstream mode on the HF bands seems to me to be 
> the same as 
> advocating an across-the-board return to AM, complete with its power 
> inefficiencies and waste of spectrum.  I just don't get it.
> 
> It's just another reason for me to stick with CW, I guess ...
> 
> Dave  AB7E
> 
> 
> 
> Hector Padron wrote:
> > Some ones might be interested to read this:
> >  
> > http://www.essb.us/index.html
> >  
> > AD4C
> >
> >