[Amps] Audio BW -- Please just let us operate!!

["Rob Atkinson, K5UJ" <k5uj@hotmail.com>]

<<<Communications Quality Audio" has long been defined as
ca. 2.7 - 3 KHz bandwidth ... a definition extending back
into Bell Systems' "toll quality" standards.>>>

Joe, if you will read the Polycom paper referenced below, you will find the 
phone network cuts off at 3.3 KHz and that isn't really enough bandwidth to 
allow for more than 75% speech intelligibility, because consonant energy, 
which is what makes speech intelligible, not vowels, is what is in the 
frequencies above 3 KHz.  Does it make sense to allow an old copper wire 
network standard (by the way, can you cite what you have stated?) to define 
HF radio audio?  Do you think a highway bridge should be built according to 
19th century engineering codes for horse and buggy traffic?

http://www.icycolors.com/nu9n/images/Sound.pdf

<<<Double sideband AM and HiFi SSB
with 4.5 and 6 KHz audio bandwidth are a complete waste of
spectrum and are arguably illegal under rule 97.307(a)>>>

Perhaps you should write ARRL and complain to them about their desire to 
"grandfather"
DSB AM?  Don't forget to mention 10 meter FM.

"Arguably illegal?"  If so, then they are also arguably legal.

<<<Those who use spectrum wasting modulation have no place on
a crowded HF band ... >>>

It is interesting I have always thought, that ARRL, on one hand is so 
concerned about a decline in new hams, that they are even backing reduced cw 
testing, but at the same time, are apparently worried about so-called "wide" 
SSB signals sucking up precious frequencies, as if there are already too 
many hams on the air, and besides this non-sequitur, we have them, in their 
"plan" doing basically nothing about huge amounts of cw space which go 
unused, except of course on cw contest weekends when they partially fill 
(about 80 KHz) with thousands of hams generating hundreds of thousands of 
meaningless qsos.  Now, if there were _really_ a problem with phone band 
crowding, don't you think the ARRL would want to examine the amount of space 
being unused by cw operators?  And isn't it interesting that they are loath 
to make any significant cw allocation changes, but are not interested in 
continuing to support cw by having cw testing for the license exams?  The 
list of conflicted reasoning, and logical flaws goes on and on....

<<<You're absolutely correct ... :

   No amateur station transmission shall occupy more
   bandwidth than necessary for the information rate
   and emission type being transmitted, in accordance
   with good amateur practice.>>>

Apparently we disagree on what constitutes good amateur practice.

73,

rob/k5uj

_________________________________________________________________
Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps