Best sounding AM audio ... informal poll and discussion

[KA2DZT]

What? No votes for 51 watts Fred?

Thanks Dave,  looks like I'll have to cast one vote for myself.

73, Fred

[K1JJ]

Jay -

Those curves are really something to ponder. It shows the D-104 has a 20db! rise from about 100hz to 3K or so. Wow.


The B1 sure is pretty smooth and flat. The RE-27 appears to have a reasonably flat curve between the important freqs, but those 5db per division grids sure are compressed to make things look better than they are. But who's to say the B1 flat line is better than the engineered 20db rise on the D-104? Maybe it just means less EQing needed with the D-104  on some voices...

I once heard QIX do an A/B  comparison between an RE-20 and B1. The B1 sounded better, though I can see now that it could have been simply the EQ setting were more optimized for the B1 at the time. IE, I'll bet the RE-20 would sound about the same as the B1 once the differences in curve were dialed out by the EQ.

As you said, when 2-3 db can make a big difference on the EQ, some of these mikes have huge curve variations in the 10's of db.

Either way, I'll stick with my RE-20. It's been the best mike I've ever used for over 10 years now and I have no desire to change it for AM or ssb use


("Mikes" are people too...  )

T

[K5UJ]

Like I've said before, an AM station with wx radio audio sounds better to me than a SSB station doing the ESSB thing.

They can sound real good on a R390A.

Who's "they" the ESSB or AM?
Well the ESSB sound better than space shuttle but no matter what they do, there is a subtle characteristic SSB sound.  But, if you have the right rx and tuned in right, and the other guy produces his SSB with digital phasing (i.e. not narrow analog filtering) and has his audio just right with a decent frequency response (a lot of ifs that usually don't get pulled off) then it's pretty good but not natural like with AM.

[W2PFY]

then it's pretty good but not natural like with AM

Sorry I never got his call but he was excellent. The other guy talking to him sounded good but as I adjusted the receiver freq, he didn't sound as good as the other guy. Then the other guy started talking again to the other guy and at that point I again adjusted for the other guy to clear him up but then the other guy sounded off when he started talking again.

At this point some guys showed up at my door with some beers and we forgot all about those other guys

[Ralph W3GL]

        WELL,


        Go figure.......

[WB4AIO]

then it's pretty good but not natural like with AM

Sorry I never got his call but he was excellent. The other guy talking to him sounded good but as I adjusted the receiver freq, he didn't sound as good as the other guy. Then the other guy started talking again to the other guy and at that point I again adjusted for the other guy to clear him up but then the other guy sounded off when he started talking again.

At this point some guys showed up at my door with some beers and we forgot all about those other guys ;D ;D

I think that, properly transmitted and received with appropriate frequency response, and with super-slow AVC, SSB has the potential of sounding as good as AM.

However, that potential is seldom achieved in practice -- both due to the inherent nature of AVC with suppressed carrier (it adds audio compression/limiting not present in the transmitted signal), and the difficulty of tuning SSB receivers so that the transmitted audio's harmonic relationships are perfectly correct.

Many people -- particularly older men, who constitute a large percentage of amateur operators -- have high frequency hearing loss. And huge numbers of people also have little sense of pitch, so having the natural voice harmonics not on harmonically related frequencies doesn't bother them at all. (It makes me cringe.) When an operator has both of these problems simultaneously, he'll often tune the other fellow's SSB signal in 100 or 200 Hz high so that it "sounds nice and crisp" to his atrophied ears.  Then the other station will retune so things sound "right" to him in his receiver -- and they walk up the band. Or, if they don't walk up the band, they sit on two different frequencies, so it's impossible to hear both of them correctly without retuning. Maddening!

The inclusion of higher frequency accuracy and stability in amateur SSB gear in the last decade or two has helped, as has a growing awareness of what good audio sounds like. But the problem still exists.

All these problems, including the AVC problem, could have been solved so easily by using a pilot carrier system, as HF broadcast feeders still use today. Technical Materiel Corporation and Kahn Research and probably others had working systems for sale in the 1950s. It was probably cost that prevented such systems from being used much if at all on the ham bands. But today it would cost next to nothing to add PLLs, add carrier-based AVC, and transmit -15 dB carriers on SSB.

It would make a huge difference in how SSB sounds. But some might object: The hams who have been taught (falsely) how wicked it is to ever transmit a carrier; the people who would resent it because their current gear wouldn't benefit; and the hearing- and pitch-impaired who would be very annoyed by having a radio that forced them to tune signals in properly, instead of the way they prefer -- 150 Hz high.


With my best,


Kevin, WB4AIO.

[KX5JT]

then it's pretty good but not natural like with AM

Sorry I never got his call but he was excellent. The other guy talking to him sounded good but as I adjusted the receiver freq, he didn't sound as good as the other guy. Then the other guy started talking again to the other guy and at that point I again adjusted for the other guy to clear him up but then the other guy sounded off when he started talking again.

At this point some guys showed up at my door with some beers and we forgot all about those other guys

I think I heard those guys on the other day.

[W1VD]

On 500 kHz another station and myself run receivers and homebrew phasing type transmitters with oscillators that are locked to GPS disciplined frequency standards. SSB sounds as good as AM, however, without a carrier the frequency doesn't remain quiet during pauses in speech.     

[W2PFY]

On 500 kHz another station and myself run receivers and home brew phasing type transmitters with oscillators that are locked to GPS disciplined frequency standards

Do you have any pictures posted on the above Dave?

[WA3VJB]

... however, without a carrier the frequency doesn't remain quiet during pauses in speech.     

This is the nugget that disproves the contention "the carrier provides no information."

Indeed, it provides a cue to set the pace of a thoughtful transmission of information, punctuation really, to alert the listener the person is not yet done with their message.

[KX5JT]

Indeed, the carrier is the canvas upon which the modulation brushes the artwork!


After all slopbucket is simply paint thrown into the air!

[w3jn]

 

Well said!

[w1vtp]

On 500 kHz another station and myself run receivers and homebrew phasing type transmitters with oscillators that are locked to GPS disciplined frequency standards. SSB sounds as good as AM, however, without a carrier the frequency doesn't remain quiet during pauses in speech.     

If you can, slow down your AVC A LOT.  That works on the Flex 5000.  Still not quite like a full quieting AM signal but pretty good

VTP

[Bill, KD0HG]

Indeed, JT!

Then there is ACSSB with which a pilot tone is transmitted that a receiver can phase lock on so there can be no tuning problem in spite of using SSB.

I'll still take the pair of 810s any day.

[K6JEK]

...The hams who have been taught (falsely) how wicked it is to ever transmit a carrier ...

It is wicked to broadcast a carrier.  That's why we do it.

[k4kyv]

And huge numbers of people also have little sense of pitch, so having the natural voice harmonics not on harmonically related frequencies doesn't bother them at all. (It makes me cringe.) When an operator has both of these problems simultaneously, he'll often tune the other fellow's SSB signal in 100 or 200 Hz high so that it "sounds nice and crisp" to his atrophied ears.  Then the other station will retune so things sound "right" to him in his receiver -- and they walk up the band. Or, if they don't walk up the band, they sit on two different frequencies, so it's impossible to hear both of them correctly without retuning. Maddening!

That used to happen all the time during the early 60's when the cheap, crappy, "sideband for the masses" rigs like Galaxies, early Swans and Heapshit "Hotwater" rigs first came out.  I have listened to slopbucket QSOs literally walk up or down the band until they migrated beyond the band limits. That always caused me to ROTFLMAO.

It became less of a problem once the appliance manufacturers started to include "clarifiers" or RITs to their rigs, which allow small adjustments of receiver frequency without changing the transmit frequency, but there were always a few hammy  hambone types who never quite figured out what the purpose of RIT was.

I believe someone developed a type of synchronous detector for SSB that detected whether or not the natural harmonics in the audio range actually fall on harmonically related frequencies, and automatically adjusted to compensate for errors, but I don't know how successfully it worked, or if it simply never caught on commercially.

[Mike/W8BAC]

KD0HG/Bill wrote

Then there is ACSSB with which a pilot tone is transmitted that a receiver can phase lock on so there can be no tuning problem in spite of using SSB.

I never heard of ACSSB Bill but it is interesting none the less. A controlled, narrow audio tone plus lower and upper sidebands. I bet it would sound just fine. I'm going to do some internet searches to see if I can find more on this. Thanks.

Mike

[k4kyv]

As I recall, ACSSB was being touted in the early 80's as a replacement mode for narrow-band FM in the VHF/UHF land mobile service.  It was said to retain many of the quieting and capture characteristics of FM but promised to be more effective and take less spectrum space.  UPS said they were planning to use it in the part of the 220 mc band they successfully lobbied the FCC to take from the hams. But they never actually used the spectrum once it was re-allocated, and nothing more was ever heard about ACSSB.

[W2VW]

Brown paint.

Indeed, the carrier is the canvas upon which the modulation brushes the artwork!


After all slopbucket is simply paint thrown into the air!

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

ACSSB - Amplitude Compandored SSB. The term compandored is a combination of compression and expansion.

The pilot tone was used for more than just frequency/phase lock. The pilot tone was also modulated with audio level information (phase modulated IIRC).

The idea was to compress the heck out of the audio when it was transmitted. The level of compression would be modulated on the pilot tone. On the RX end, this compression info would be used to expanded (reverse the effects of the compression) and restore the dynamic range. Since the noise was not compressed, its level would be reduced during expansion, thus achieving an improvement in SNR.

Listening to ACSSB without this proper expansion results in horrible audio (like a contester with his audio cranked up to 11 and the compressor/clipper cranked up to 12).

This process is similar to the Dolby noise reduction systems used for tape recording.

KD0HG/Bill wrote

Then there is ACSSB with which a pilot tone is transmitted that a receiver can phase lock on so there can be no tuning problem in spite of using SSB.

I never heard of ACSSB Bill but it is interesting none the less. A controlled, narrow audio tone plus lower and upper sidebands. I bet it would sound just fine. I'm going to do some internet searches to see if I can find more on this. Thanks.

Mike

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Doing a search in the ARRL periodical section for "ACSSB" brings up fives pages of article listings. Most are in QEX, and a few in QST and Ham Radio Magazines. It looks like it was the talk of the ham radio community back in 1985 and 86.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Here's Don strapping on 160 meters this past March. You'll hear a few thumps or clicks in the recording. That's not Don. That's me switching between the 160 meter dipole and the Southwest Beverage. Don is coming in well on both but the SNR was slightly better on the Beverage.

[ke7trp]

That sounds like don.. However, He must have been full blast into that RXer.   let me guess? 60 DB over?  I used to talk to Don in the winter time, real late at night and he was strapping in here to AZ full blast.

C

[ke7trp]

would you believe the second I typed that don came in 50 DB over on 3880!!! 

C

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

I don't remember for sure but I'd say Don was 20-30 dB over S9 that night. On my receiver that is a big signal. Only a few people, mostly locals push it to 40-over. The noise was very low on 160 that night - it was about 2 AM, so the SNR was very high.

My vote for the best sounding audio from an AM DX station is F6AQK.