[AMRadio] AM Broadcast Quality


Brett Gazdzinski b.gaz at comcast.net
Tue Dec 17 18:06:16 EST 2013


A wide 100 watt signal is not bad to be next to, and I do not think people 
running old gear should be made to clean it up if they do not want to.
But someone who is running 1000 watts of carrier and has 10Kc audio on it, 
processed to fill the spectrum, is a different story.

I have never seen Don wide, and he always sounds great to me.

I just think its rude to park on 3875 at 9 pm and take from 3860 to 3890 
with a 35 over s9 signal.
Its great that someone can generate that big and good of a signal, but its 
rude to use it at prime time.

I do not care what you do with a 100 watt rig, it will not be strong enough 
to trash that much spectrum.


Brett
N2DTS


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jay Bromley" <jayw5jay at cox.net>
To: <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 10:51 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..



More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 20 Nov 2017.