"THX audio test" -is music, or is not music?

[Opcom]

The Feces prohibit even a test tone on the air.

Where in Part 97 does it say that?

As I recall, when they prohibited music for "test purposes" some time in the late 1930s, they added a provision that simple tones were legal for "brief" tests. That leaves it open to interpretation what is music and what is a "simple" tone, and how much time it takes to exceed "brief".  Are two-tone slopbucket tests illegal? What about slopbucket "peckers"?

What about them? - well whatever you do, don't goggle it in hopes of finding technical information.

[flintstone mop]

As The Good Book says........."Do everything in moderation"

Play your THX test on the air and test tones, we won't turn you in.

[k4kyv]

 Quite True, Anyone up for a little "MCW" ?

MCW is (or at least was last time I read the regs) legal for ID purposes-only when operating AM or FM phone. Repeaters usually ID that way. It is not legal for carrying on a QSO on HF, but I believe even that it is OK on VHF and above. Of course, with slopbucket MCW would be identical to normal A-1 CW, which is also a legal way to ID when operating phone.

I remember that was a big issue amongst the CW ops when the FeeCee was floating (Bandwidth) Docket 20777.  Limitation-by-bandwidth would have made MCW legal on all frequencies for communications purposes, as long as the tone frequency kept the signal within the proposed "narrow-modes" bandwidth.  The same goes for the defunct ARRL bandwidth proposal. Many of the CW guys were afraid that widespread use of MCW would "ruin" the CW bands.

[Opcom]

CW being narrow and there being a sub band reserved for it, I would agree with the CW enthusiasts' opinion of why MCW should not be used in the so called CW sub band. I would have no objection to MCW use in the 'wide' sub band. It would probably be about as common as carrierless versions of ISB /DSB, with too few adherents to be a nuisance to a reasonable person.
The ARRL tried to persuade the FCC to prohibit ISB when they didn't even know what they were talking about from a technical standpoint. I argued for ISB (with or without carrier). Its a technical mode.

[k4kyv]

The ARRL tried to persuade the FCC to prohibit ISB when they didn't even know what they were talking about from a technical standpoint. I argued for ISB (with or without carrier). Its a technical mode.

That reminds me of one of the deceptive/fraudulent declarations the FeeCee used as they were pushing through the AM power issue.  Of course, here on HF, we operate a handful of distinct modes: AM, SSB, FM, CW, Data, FSK, RTTY, SSTV, and  maybe a couple more. But the FeeCee's argument against any footnote to recognise a special power classification for AM was that full-carrier double sideband is just one of more than something like 1300 emission types used by amateurs.  This was based on the new ITU system of emissions designators that had been adopted about that same time.  We did not gain authorisation for a single new mode, but under the revised designator system, even the slightest variation in any one of the long-standing modes allows it to be classisfied as a separate, distinct mode.  For example, SSB with carrier, SSB reduced carrier, SSB with controlled-carrier and SSB suppressed carrier are all classified as separate distinct modes, thus the FeeCee's amateur rulemaking division was able to grossly inflate the total "number of modes" amateurs are allowed to use, to minimise the apparent significance of AM to the technically ignorant lawyer types who serve as Commissioners and give the final OK to rules changes.

Under the revised system, there is no emission designator for DSB suppressed carrier, although I have never heard anything about the FeeCee declaring it illegal to use on the amateur bands.