TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

[TenTec] RE: Explication

To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: [TenTec] RE: Explication
From: AC5E@aol.com (AC5E@aol.com)
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 11:04:24 EDT
Well, first let me finish cussin' an E-mail program that has no easy way to 
insert a snippet from another E-mail. Then let me see if I can find a way to 
explain something in absolutely non-technical terms so everyone can follow 
along. 

>> Steve Ellington, N4LQ, asks for either an explanation, expansion, or 
explicaton of my previous post. 

First, we classify and identify sounds by frequency, by intensity, and by 
relative phase. Where the frequency and the intensity are similar, as they 
are in much Amateur work, our ears do a wonderful job of separating similar 
sounds by phase difference.

The simplest detectors, from the galena crystal on, had little or no effect 
on relative phase between incoming signals. Neither did the simple tube 
circuits from Armstrong to at least the first up-converting solid state 
recievers. (No, I'm not knocking up conversion. That's a time reference!) 

So most of the time it was pretty easy to separate the news on the Red 
network from that on the Blue network, today's NBC and ABC, even when they 
were coming in at approximately the same signal strength. 

So there was usually no confusion between the Red's report on General 
McAuliffe's defense of Bastogne and the Blue's reports of McArthur's progress 
in the Pacific. Even though the names were similar enough to be confused. 

And at least some, my father was one, could follow as many as four separate 
radio "channels" at the same time when propagation was such that four 
stations came in with about the same signal strength.  

However, there were times when selective fading and multipath caused phase 
shifts on the signal path(s) and upset the relationship between R and B. The 
signals were no longer sharp and distinct, they were "smeared." During those 
periods it was difficult to separate two voices. They were, in a manner of 
speaking, "in phase," and were from somewhat to completely unintelligible. 

Now, under most circumstances the simplest diode detector can provide audio 
that the ear can separate into all its individual components. While product 
detectors CAN be designed that preserve the phase relationships between 
descrete signals, very few are. And while the JRC has many shortcomings, it 
has a very good detector. 

But very few "modern" rigs can provide an output that my ear can separate 
into separate and intelligible channels of information. Most modern rigs 
"smear" the incoming signals, either in their IF strips, their filters, or 
their detectors, so multiple signals wind up like the signals on a bad AM 
path, "in phase." My ears at least are no longer able to easily separate and 
recognize such distorted signals.  

Considering the number of times I have heard DX and contest stations come 
back to a calling station and get no response I suspect many suffer from the 
same problem I have. 

The solution? Take as much care in designing low distortion IF strips, 
bandpass filters, and detectors as you would in designing a general purpose 
public address "medium fidelity" audio system. 

After all, the IF and detector in the family's battery powered Watterson was 
only designed to provide "telephone quality" fidelity. But even with its 
cracked speaker cone it was far more intelligible than many of today's wonder 
rigs. 

73  Pete Allen  AC5E

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>