|[AMRadio] AM Broadcast Quality|
macklinbob at gmail.com
Tue Dec 17 11:38:51 EST 2013
What about ESSB?
"Real Radios Glow In The Dark"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Bromley" <jayw5jay at cox.net>
To: <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: [AMRadio] AM Broadcast Quality
>I don't know how many times I've heard a stock BW 5100, Valiant, RiceBox,
> etc, using only 100 watts on 3.885 taking up more BW than other stations
> using broadcast iron that is 30 dB higher in signal strength using much
> power! In other words, Johnny novice AMer using his stock BW5100 is S9 is
> taking up more space on the dial than a station using BC audio that is 30
> or more over the S9 point. Those guys always seem the need to crank up
> audio just for folks to hear them with that restricted audio splattering
> and down the band. Very few of them seem to care enough to use a simple
> monitor scope or to get the distortion out of their audio. It is not the
> signal that not cutting it here, S9 is plenty loud enough, there is not
> enough audio power or "fidelity" for them to get through the noise.
> One thing I have noticed using an SDR receiver, is many times I have used
> more bandwidth (NOT less) on receive to understand what a guy is saying.
> This seems to be clear from QRM and many times on a noisy night. This is
> completely wrong from conventional thinking and from what I was taught.
> IMHO, if you are going to sound like the FAA control tower, then why
> at all with AM? You are taking up double the space of an SSB station and
> many times sounding worse while taking up more BW like in the example
> Once we start going down this rabbit hole of less bandwidth, less power,
> etc, really is no end to it until you get to why do ham radio at all!
> are some PC folks in our Ham Radio ranks that want to even outlaw antennas
> more than a simple dipole because of an unfair advantage!
> Looking at my panadaptor these days and nights, we are a dying breed
> compared to other decades. I know the numbers say different, but that
> doesn't mean the numbers are on the air. For that matter, I never hear
> of your that are on this list every day, maybe I am too wide for you or
> are too narrow for me! :-) You will never get any new younger blood in
> hobby with crappie audio.
> BTW, I also do digital modes. There are modes much narrower than CW and
> that also use less power! JT65 and JT9 are some of the newest WSJT modes.
> Many times you can't even hear a JT9 signal on the air! Like some digital
> modes, it is like watching paint dry with canned QSOs. Not very exciting
> and I wouldn't expect everyone to like it or use it. In the same token,
> there were no "Clean" broadcast audio on AM, I wouldn't be on AM or in ham
> radio for that matter. If I wanted to listen to FAA audio all I need is a
> It is all good as far as I am concerned. I will continue to try all the
> modes when I can, but you will find me in the AM groups with good "Clean"
> like audio.
> Give me guys that have audio like K4KYV any day over the BW5100 fly boys!
> 73 de w5jay/jay..
> Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net
> AMRadio mailing list
> Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/
> List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html
> List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
> To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with
> the word unsubscribe in the message body.
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
More information about the AMRadio mailing list
This page last updated 17 Jan 2018.