[Kenwood] Re: Personal Opinion on mikes

Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:47:51 -0500

I have seen this topic come up on several lists and heard very valid
explanations from gentlemen who received an FCC advisory. Reading the full
text of it simply indicates that the FCC acted on heresy rather than
credible monitoring. IMHO, it is sad indeed that authorities, by their own
admission, chose to send out these advisory notes based purely on a barrage
of complaints sent by the same vindictive hams. At least one ham has stated
that he has been off the air since Sept. 2002...even though he has received
this advisory.

IMHO..often times this topic is fuelled by those who have a very poor
technical understanding of how mics, transceivers and ssb filters have a
bearing on the occupied bandwidths of a SSB signal. Little knowledge indeed
is a dangerous thing -- especially when you don't have the technical
knowledge to back up claims!

This whole thing started when Feed claimed that a GOLDLINE mic may cause
transmissions to exceed "permissible 3K bandwidths" quote: > I am not sure I
really am in love with Heil's wideband Gold microphone - a  signal that wide
does not belong in 3KHz of allowable bandwidth, not in my opinion. Unquote:

Lets get back to the relevant point and find out if indeed a GM series mic
can result in transmission that might "aggravate" Mr. Hollinworth. That IMHO
would be more in keeping with what the content of this reflector ought to
be. I am sure there are many on this reflector who now wonder about your
claim Fred and if indeed to buy or junk a GM!

Will inviting Mr.Luiciano Pavarotti to sing into a Goldline plugged into a
Ham radio result in a transmitted bandwidth in excess of the allowable 3K
bandwidth you refer to?  If all things are as the manufacturer intended, the
SSB filter is rated say -6db at 2.4K, how will plugging in a GM or ANY MIC
which has a wide response result in a signal in excess of  "3KHz of
allowable bandwidth" ?

It is never the mic which creates all this fuss. There are many fine
operators who are into high quality SSB. Those critical usually are the
older hams who are not receptive to changes and/or appreciate the technical
side of the hobby. I have read that similar criticisms of SSB (by AM ops)
resulted when it first showed up! During these times, when ham radio has
become more of a "talking" hobby... I, for one, appreciate the technical
side of enhanced SSB audio. However, I DO NOT approve of it done at 6K.
Having said that, I also know that most of the ops who get on the
"bandwagon" who criticize it have no idea what sort of a bandwidth a station
actually might occupy. It is extremely unfair to brand anyone a violator of
the 3K limit simply because he might sound high quality. The new IC7800 is
rumoured to be an ideal "out of the box" plug and play LO FI SSB rig. It
received the FCC's type aproval I guess?

Can we please go back to the GM and if it can result in a signal that might
"aggravate" Hollingworth and co?

73,
Ron, 6Y5/4S7RO

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Adsit" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 9:57 AM
Subject: [Kenwood] Re: Personal Opinion on mikes

> Please read ALL of this message before flying off the handle. We US hams
> are, in the FCC's rules, "self regulating". Later I make that point.
>
> Take a look at the following series of FCC citations re bandwidth:
>
> http://www.arrl.org/news/enforcement_logs/2003/0419.html
>
> Part 97 appears here:
>
> http://www.arrl.org/files/infoserv/rib/part97.txt
>
> The U.S. FCC rules have been watered down. Here is an on-topic sentence in
> the rules:
>
> Section 97.307(a) of the Commission's Rules requires that no amateur
> station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth that necessary for the
> information rate and emission type being transmitted, in accordance with
> good amateur practice.
>
> What "good amateur practice" is re phone operation, is loosely defined in
> the following FCC enforcement statement:
>
> "Section 97.101 applies to all amateur stations at all times. When an
> amateur station transmits a voice emission that occupies more bandwidth
> than necessary in order to achieve a "great audio" sound, that emission
> occupies spectrum that could be utilized by several other amateur
> stations. To occupy more bandwidth necessary in a heavily used amateur
> band is not only extremely inconsiderate, but is contrary to requirement
> that amateur operators cooperate in the utilization of frequencies
> allocated to them, and make the most effective use of them."
>
> Whatever floats your boat. This topic is a stand-off, IMO. I reckon you
> can do whatever you please, within reason, with your Heil mic or ANY mic
> when using AM and a really classy wideband transmitter, on, let us say,
> 75M phone. Just don't aggravate Riley Hollingsworth and Company if you are
> licensed by the FCC. The band is crowded as it is, mainly with SSB
> stations. Fortunately, the experimenters do not operate all over the band,
> debating who sounds better on AM. Nothing wrong with doing it as long as
> you don't splatter, and that rule applies to SSB as well. From what I can
> tell from the doublespeak in Part 97, to cite a sticky aspect of this, a
> strong signal outside the band edge, let us say right above 4 Mhz, seems
> to be considered with a 3KHz bandwidth phone signal in mind. Now, if you
> are operating an AM signal there with "great audio" and a rig that will
> pass that audio faithfully, some little elf tells me you /may/ hear from
> the FCC. Just a /guess/. But I also think it helps support my feelings, so
> I offer it for consideration only.
>
> I cannot "win" this discussion, nor do I wish to discourage hams from
> comparing audio quality of some great pieces of vintage ham gear. I tune
> in myself and find it all very interesting and reminiscent of the days
> when I started back in 1948. In today's operating environment, I just
> would have one heck of a time operating even SSB anywhere near that
> frequency. Since I don't need to, I don't try.
>
> Being penitent and suffering from Mic in Mouth Disease and being mainly a
> CW operator, I remain,
> Fred NY2V
>
>
> - - -
>
> Your moderator for this list is:
> Larry Wilson KE1HZ [email protected]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kenwood mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/kenwood