[AMRadio] AM Broadcast Quality


Jay Bromley jayw5jay at cox.net
Tue Dec 17 12:05:48 EST 2013


HI Bob,
What about it?  So many examples of both good and bad, much like AMers!  For
one thing they are using only one sideband for the most part and no carrier.

For me I can think of another great example of trying to being narrow, but
not really so in the real world.  Tune to 14.178 and listen to some the 2.9
KHz guys.  Depending on who we are receiving, sometimes the narrower station
running a ton of processing is taking up more bandwidth than someone that is
running slightly wider audio, but running it clean with less processing.
Many of them trying to force feeding audio against brickwall DSP filters
making them super nasty and wide.  

Noticed I didn't need to comment on the DXers using RF clippers.  For the
record I am not picking on anyone or group here, I am just trying to state
what might not be so obvious facts. I am also a DXer myself with 9BDXCC
including 160m DXCC, but still lacking the Honor Roll, current at 315
overall confirmed.  Seems ever group has some cleaning up to do, but we need
all of them for ham radio to survive, again IMHO.

Many of those folks are also wanting to be loud and sound "wide like" (with
tons of Bass and Treble) while having brick wall DSP digital filters.  Talk
about listener fatigue!

73 de w5jay/jay..

-----Original Message-----
From: K5MYJ [mailto:macklinbob at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 10:39 AM
To: Jay Bromley; amradio at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [AMRadio] AM Broadcast Quality

What about ESSB?

Bob Macklin
K5MYJ
Seattle, Wa.
"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 
> more
> 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 
> dB
> or more over the S9 point.  Those guys always seem the need to crank up 
> the
> audio just for folks to hear them with that restricted audio splattering 
> up
> 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 
> bother
> 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 
> above.
> 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! 
> There
> 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 
> many
> of your that are on this list every day, maybe I am too wide for you or 
> you
> are too narrow for me!  :-)  You will never get any new younger blood in 
> the
> hobby with crappie audio.
>
> BTW, I also do digital modes.  There are modes much narrower than CW and 
> PSK
> 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, 
> if
> 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
> scanner!
>
> 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" 
> BC
> 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 25 Nov 2017.