ARRL Controlling Bandwidth Through Manufacturers in 40s-50s

[KM1H]

Well, the difference between the kiddies and us old farts is that we where there during various parts of the AM era.

I'll leave it to you to read all the early CQ's which would be a start for those not very experienced with paper that believe if it cant be found with a Google it doesnt exist.

OTOH I attended many 60's ARRL national and regional conventions as part of my job and listened in to many discussions over the demise of AM by the manufacturing honchos and other hams, Jean Shepherd, K2ORS, was often a regular.  Im sorry that I didnt have my digital video cam with me to record it........
Back then I was strictly into SSB/CW for HF and some AM on VHF where it was still very popular.

Anybody that believes the nonsense that a narrow audio BW is the key to being heard in the noise should read the Collins book "SSB, Systems and Circuits" for a little refresher on intelligibility.

[Todd, KA1KAQ]

I'll leave it to you to read all the early CQ's which would be a start for those not very experienced with paper that believe if it cant be found with a Google it doesnt exist.

Well, once again Carl - you're back to making assumptions ('others only use Google to research'). The issue is not whether the ARRL promoted limited bandwidth; we know they did and do. Not being a total newb to amateur radio or AM myself, I own and have read over the last 3+ decades most, if not all, of the early QST and CQ magazines from the era you mention. All they do is support the position we already knew existed - not your claim that the ARRL mandated bandwidth through preventing manufacturers from advertising or anything like that. As well, several  examples given by me and others seem to be make it pretty clear that manufacturers, not the ARRL, moved toward the narrowER bandwidth principal out of a desire to sell more/'better' (from a business as well as technical aspect) transmitters.

OTOH I attended many 60's ARRL national and regional conventions as part of my job and listened in to many discussions over the demise of AM by the manufacturing honchos and other hams, Jean Shepherd, K2ORS, was often a regular.  Im sorry that I didnt have my digital video cam with me to record it........
Back then I was strictly into SSB/CW for HF and some AM on VHF where it was still very popular.

No one is disputing this point either. It's a well-established fact that a majority of hams, not just manufacturers, hopped on the SSB train once it arrived in the station. A moot point, whether you were there or not. Popularity is a different matter than a mandate. We're still looking for the proof of your original statement that the ARRL, not the manufacturers, made the final decision on bandwidth used in all commercially made transmitters.

Anybody that believes the nonsense that a narrow audio BW is the key to being heard in the noise should read the Collins book "SSB, Systems and Circuits" for a little refresher on intelligibility.

Another misdirection. I've seen no one make this statement. The term is narrowER, which gets back to your original assertion. For example, 3kHz is narrowER than 6 or 8 kHz. 500Hz is narrowER than 3kHz, etc. Clearly even a SSB signal sounds better and has more intelligibility at 3kHz width than 500Hz, so 'narrow' isn't necessarily the best or only answer for all cases.

It appears that what you really meant to say was that the ARRL supported and encouraged (even strongly) using narrower bandwidths as both AM heterodynes became a problem and SSB arrived for the masses. No argument from me or probably anyone else on that. However, the ARRL mandating such for all manufacturers is another matter entirely. I've never seen any proof of this in any of the CQ, QST, Ham Radio, handbooks, or other printed matter. Haven't tried Google yet, though. 

[K3ZS]

Anyone who remembers the mass heterodynes on the AM phone bands in the 50's can appreciate the fact that most HF phone now is on SSB.  AM was not such a great mode at the time,  SSB was much better for maintaining a conversation.   AM is much more usable now because it is a minority mode of operation, not the mass mode as it was in "the good old days".

[KA0HCP]

While I'm glad the ARRL acceded to giving AM a page of their website as a specialty mode, lets be honest and admit to the Realpolitik:  The ARRL can't responsibly begin to encourage significant re-development of AM for the very same reasons AM was such a problem in the past.

If even a small fraction of hams took up AM the bands would once again be jammed.

Being angry with the ARRL over the (sensible and practical) rise of SSB sixty years ago makes as much sense as being angry with Wendall Wilkie for not getting elected president!

[KM1H]

The beginnings of this thread can be found in the Technical forum under "mic for use with 32V2"

Todd, I expected more than word games out of you, but instead you are a new member of the spin cycle club.

If you cant accept my first hand recollections of this subject then you better do the same with everything else that doesnt have black and white proof. Being selective doesnt cut it and neither do Steves hot air insults.

Im making the claim, I challenge you, Steve, and anyone else to disprove it with documents.
To be clear I say the ARRL pressured manufacturers to restrict AM bandwidth to about 3KHz per sideband. How they did it was by enlisting support from some manufacturers and pressuring others that they would not accept further ads for a particular transmitter until the mandate was met.

SSB was automatically restricted in phasing rigs to ~2700-3000Hz due to what could be accomplished in the audio phase shift networks of the time. Filter rigs went progressively narrower and pretty much fell in line with Collins once better crystal filters were developed.

I wasn't there, but everything I've read and heard from others back then says it was merely a case of it being Amateur radio, not broadcast AM. Communication was the goal, so the more punch your audio had and the less wasted in extra lows and highs, the better your chances for being heard. Who wanted to sell a transmitter that sounded wonderful but got lost in the noise?

Those were your own words Todd that I replied to by suggesting you read the Collins publication.

And I mean ACTUALLY READ it and not keep up a continual stream of spin and blather instead. You might actually learn something new instead of just being a nabob of negativism as your buddy.

Carl

[Opcom]

Trade you for that crate of 851 tubes, radio man!

73DG

I don't have a bridge but I'll trade a router for a case of 851's.

Beyond the value of personal accounts, one way to verify what the ARRL publicly pushed would be to check the handbooks of those years and tabulate their suggestions on audio response, but it does not cover advertisements and possible coercion, in commercial magazines and applied to transmitters.
That should be investigated separately because it is to the point. However, what was publicly suggested in the Handbook should correlate with the advertisement analysis.

If there was advertising-based coercion, there should be indirect evidence of it as having been pushed more in ARRL-owned publications and less evident in others not beholden to the ARRL.

In lieu of a statement from someone involved in the alleged ad-based coercion, some evidence might be more frequent ads appearing for 'wider' sets in one publication than another, certain sets not appearing at all in an ARRL-controlled publication, or a delay between one publication and another of the advertising for certain models of newly introduced transmitting equipment (accounting for the manufacturer needing time to cowtow the demands).

To research it scientifically, the model numbers (and possibly serial number ranges for factory changes or recommended mods etc.) of both the the 'wider' and 'narrower' types and versions of the transmitters of the time would need to be known before the information about ad placement would be of much use.

Audio information usually published in the transmitter manuals of the time would be good to correlate with the above, even if it might not be so accurate.

(Interesting but it's not for me to do the research. It's for those who were engaged in the topic and literature at the time)

[Todd, KA1KAQ]

Todd, I expected more than word games out of you, but instead you are a new member of the spin cycle club.

Yes, I'm aware that this is one of your favorite responses when someone disagrees with your position and you can't provide anything beyond 'because I said so' as a response. Hang in there!

If you cant accept my first hand recollections of this subject then you better do the same with everything else that doesnt have black and white proof. Being selective doesnt cut it and neither do Steves hot air insults.

I didn't see Steve or anyone insulting you, simply disagreeing. And who's being selective? I've heard more first hand accounts than just yours, from others who were around and involved back then. They just don't necessarily agree completely with your opinion (which is what we call it when you have nothing to back it up beyond it being your favored view). I haven't disagreed with 99% of what you've said on the matter of the ARRL favoring more restricted bandwidths - I've actually agreed. You just select what you want to focus on in the discussion and ignore anything that doesn't agree with your view. I can't do anything about that.

Im making the claim, I challenge you, Steve, and anyone else to disprove it with documents.
To be clear I say the ARRL pressured manufacturers to restrict AM bandwidth to about 3KHz per sideband. How they did it was by enlisting support from some manufacturers and pressuring others that they would not accept further ads for a particular transmitter until the mandate was met.

No, you said they mandated it. Don't change your story now. I've provided proof to the contrary, you chose to ignore it in a previous thread by saying 'Who cares about the KW-1, they didn't make enough of them to matter anyway' or such. I believe that's called spin, twisting or ignoring the facts to suit your needs. Then you said the proof was in old CQ and QST magazines, not on Google. I've read most of those too, and disagreed. So you moved on to the 'because I said so' tactic, which made me look around the room to see if my dad was here somewhere. That was one of his favorite trump cards when I was five or so.

If your claim of a mandate is so solid, you should be able to back it up with actual documented proof. Otherwise it just comes across as your interpretation, which still doesn't make it fact. Example: I can claim that some of the vacuum tube radios you have are really mine. Then I can say 'prove otherwise'. I know you don't have a legal bill of sale for some, probably many of them because I've watched you buy some. But if we're using your logic, they must be my radios. Hand 'em over!!

I wasn't there, but everything I've read and heard from others back then says it was merely a case of it being Amateur radio, not broadcast AM. Communication was the goal, so the more punch your audio had and the less wasted in extra lows and highs, the better your chances for being heard. Who wanted to sell a transmitter that sounded wonderful but got lost in the noise?

Those were your own words Todd that I replied to by suggesting you read the Collins publication.

I've read it. The copy I have is a later printing, though. Black and purple paperback, not the hardcover with the nice yellow dust jacket. Maybe they left out something or changed the wording to trip me up.   The argument you seem to be making is one of either/or, in this case either really wide or really narrow bandwidth. Everything I've read(and even heard) says that narrowER (versus widER) audio bandwidth is more effective in noisy/congested conditions. Say - under 6 kHz, maybe even 3 kHz or so. Focusing more power into the frequencies that accomplish this with less spent in lower and higher frequencies (to an extent, hence the ER at the end) results in more recovered audio. This seems to be what Art was doing with the KW-1 which you so conveniently want to ignore, years before the big push from the ARRL.

It's hard to discuss things like this with you if you keep changing the rules and your position as things progress, Carl. At least it's germane to AM in the historical sense. But it seems we've reached the point of either taking your word for it or not, since you've not provided one shred of evidence to support your 'mandate' claim beyond an opinion. It's no secret that occupied space became a big issue by the late 50s/early 60s. But your assertion that the ARRL required manufacturers to comply with the ARRL's wishes by mandate holds no water so far.

Let us know when you come up with something concrete (no, heads do not count. I've tried that already).  

[WB4AIO]

I'll leave it to you to read all the early CQ's which would be a start for those not very experienced with paper that believe if it cant be found with a Google it doesnt exist.
[...]

Anybody that believes the nonsense that a narrow audio BW is the key to being heard in the noise should read the Collins book "SSB, Systems and Circuits" for a little refresher on intelligibility.

All things being equal, a 5 kHz bandwidth beats a 3 kHz one every time against broadband noise. But there are cases where you're forced to use 3 if the bandwidth between 3 and 5 has all or most of the noise in it. But... if you're running AM or DSBSC you can eliminate the interference much more elegantly through your inherent diversity transmission.

I have the entire pre-2006 CQ magazine run in PDF form. Could you tell me where to look there for a discussion of the narrow audio / QST ad ban issue?


Thanks,


Kevin.

[KA0HCP]

Wow the truth is revealed.  If it weren't for the meddling of the ARRL my post war transmitters would be wider and my jockey shorts would be better fitting!

*They can take my pre-ban 1937 wideband transmitter when they can find a dolly to move it!*

[Pete, WA2CWA]

1954 License Manual question: “What are the relative bandwidths of type A1 and A3 emissions? Of single-sideband and double-sideband amplitude modulated emissions?

Answer: The bandwidth occupied by an A1 (c.w.) signal is dependent on the keying speed, and at most amateur speeds is on the order of a hundred cycles or less; the bandwidth occupied by an A3 (amplitude-modulated telephony) signal is dependent on the range of audio frequencies in the modulating system, and may be as little as 6 Kc, if the modulating frequencies are limited to 3000 cycles, or as much as 12 kc. or more if no precautions are taken to limit the modulating frequencies.
For the same modulating frequencies, the bandwidth occupied by a signal-sideband signal is one-half that occupied by a double-sideband signal.”

Within the FCC general U. S. amateur regulations of 1954, although it’s not explicit in defining a numerical bandwidth number for A3, the typical legal speak does say that “occupying more than the minimum band of frequencies creates unnecessary interference and a waste of spectrum space.

Also, within the same FCC regulations, there are rules covering the radio amateur civil emergency service (i.e. Civil Defense) that basically repeat much of what was covered in the general rules. However, in these rules A3 (amplitude modulation telephony) is specified to be 6 Kc.

The 1954 ARRL Handbook covers the AM frequency bandwidth with this description: “Speech can be electrically reproduced, with high intelligibility, in a band of frequencies lying between approximately 100 and 3000 cycles. When these frequencies with a radio-frequency carrier, the sidebands occupy the frequency spectrum from 3000 cycles below the carrier frequency to 3000 cycles above – a total band or ‘channel’ of about 6 kilocycles. Actual speech frequencies extend up to 10,000 cycles or so, so it is possible to occupy a 20-kc channel if no provision is made for reducing its width. For communication purposes such a channel width represents a waste of valuable spectrum space, since a 6-kc channel is fully adequate for intelligibility. Occupying more than the minimum channel creates unnecessary interference, so speech equipment and transmitter adjustment and operation should be pointed toward maintaining the channel width at the minimum.”

So as a manufacturer wanting to sell AM transmitters in this amateur radio market in the mid-50’s, I could design transmitters with large audio bandwidth ignoring both the FCC and ARRL recommendations for the amateur population. Of course, none of these transmitters, based on the existing regulations, could be used for any civil emergency service operations. I suspect most, if not all manufacturers opted to follow both the FCC and ARRL bandwidth recommendations, and obviously capture more of the amateur market, by abiding by the 6-Kc rule of thumb channel width for A3 (amplitude modulation telephony).  As more manufacturers started producing AM/SSB rigs, it was an easy transition to cut the bandwidth to 3-Kc. and further enhance the notion of using less spectrum space.

If you were around during the 50’s, using less spectrum space was an important issue. The amateur population was growing very rapidly. There were only 5 major ham bands  (80, 40, 20, 15, and 10 meters). 160 meters was still used by LORAN and had frequency and power restrictions all across the U. S. for amateurs.  11 meters wasn’t popular due to its narrow frequency range and we lost the band in the latter part of the 50’s.  Some of the phone bands were not as wide as they are today. A typical Saturday afternoon in the 50's on 40 meters using AM was total bedlam with signals from one end of the band to the other. Adjacent channel interference was common. With the emergence of SSB popularity, it created even more interference issues on the phone bands.

I would suspect that based on the then current FCC regulations, the ARRL, since at that time they were probably considered by many manufacturers to be the active voice of radio amateurs, would recommend to manufacturers to abide by the “minimum band of frequencies” for A3 transmissions.  Designing transmitters that had wide audio bandwidth for A3 operation, potentially causing unnecessary interference, wasting spectrum space, couldn’t be legally sold for Civil Defense activities, would not be a very saleable product within the limited amateur radio communications market. It also would make no sense for the ARRL to advertise products that had the potential to disrupt or danger the activities of many amateur radio operators and the very limited amateur frequencies.

[KM1H]

Beyond the value of personal accounts, one way to verify what the ARRL publicly pushed would be to check the handbooks of those years and tabulate their suggestions on audio response, but it does not cover advertisements and possible coercion, in commercial magazines and applied to transmitters.
That should be investigated separately because it is to the point. However, what was publicly suggested in the Handbook should correlate with the advertisement analysis.

I like coercion as it better describes the ARRL's process.

Checking QST articles and Handbooks sounds like a good step as long as a circuit analysis is done plus the advertised response of transformers used.

If there was advertising-based coercion, there should be indirect evidence of it as having been pushed more in ARRL-owned publications and less evident in others not beholden to the ARRL.

Besides the HB/QST their only pubs involving AM were the Mobile and VHF Manuals, not exactly a wide choice. The SSB Manual had several editions and that might be a good place to look
Then look at the W6SAI and prior editors HB's.

In lieu of a statement from someone involved in the alleged ad-based coercion, some evidence might be more frequent ads appearing for 'wider' sets in one publication than another, certain sets not appearing at all in an ARRL-controlled publication, or a delay between one publication and another of the advertising for certain models of newly introduced transmitting equipment (accounting for the manufacturer needing time to cowtow the demands).

CQ has many other transmitter manufacturers but I dont remember any particular attention to audio comments. Nor do I know how the ARRL treated the low volume/low power companies such as Lysco, Millen, Eldico, Harvey Wells, Lettine, etc. Then there were the mobile rigs which all sounded bad since the carbon mike was the choice of many.
There was a big gap between the sudden end of the wide open HT-9 and the HT-20 which had nothing to say about audio in their ads. Bill Halligan was rather vocal about this when someone wound him up at a convention. The sudden delay of the Viking 1 availability was also attributed to a redesign of the audio section as Ive stated many times.

Audio information usually published in the transmitter manuals of the time would be good to correlate with the above, even if it might not be so accurate.

Clippers and compressors suddenly became popular with some companies, aftermarket, and articles as a means to improve intelligibility of restricted bandwidths.

Todd, I expected more than word games out of you, but instead you are a new member of the spin cycle club.

Yes, I'm aware that this is one of your favorite responses when someone disagrees with your position and you can't provide anything beyond 'because I said so' as a response. Hang in there!

Sorry Todd, but I only use it when the other side becomes completely obtuse and is more concerned about damage control and can no longer maintain a credible arguement. On one forum that other person is a complete incompetent as many have told him.

If you cant accept my first hand recollections of this subject then you better do the same with everything else that doesnt have black and white proof. Being selective doesnt cut it and neither do Steves hot air insults.

I didn't see Steve or anyone insulting you, simply disagreeing. And who's being selective? I've heard more first hand accounts than just yours, from others who were around and involved back then. They just don't necessarily agree completely with your opinion (which is what we call it when you have nothing to back it up beyond it being your favored view). I haven't disagreed with 99% of what you've said on the matter of the ARRL favoring more restricted bandwidths - I've actually agreed. You just select what you want to focus on in the discussion and ignore anything that doesn't agree with your view. I can't do anything about that.

Steve gets rather nasty at times but thats not a big problem, I can deal with it. Who and where are these mysterious sources of yours.....show and tell time.
What have I been selective with? The KW-1 is a no starter since production was so low its only a footnote and therefore not worth counting except as a manufacturing/production exercise.
I can only focus on what Ive experienced and know by a lot of reading. Its up to others to fill in the blanks if they can.

Im making the claim, I challenge you, Steve, and anyone else to disprove it with documents.
To be clear I say the ARRL pressured manufacturers to restrict AM bandwidth to about 3KHz per sideband. How they did it was by enlisting support from some manufacturers and pressuring others that they would not accept further ads for a particular transmitter until the mandate was met.


No, you said they mandated it. Don't change your story now. I've provided proof to the contrary, you chose to ignore it in a previous thread by saying 'Who cares about the KW-1, they didn't make enough of them to matter anyway' or such. I believe that's called spin, twisting or ignoring the facts to suit your needs. Then you said the proof was in old CQ and QST magazines, not on Google. I've read most of those too, and disagreed. So you moved on to the 'because I said so' tactic, which made me look around the room to see if my dad was here somewhere. That was one of his favorite trump cards when I was five or so.

You remind me of a woman, getting so hung up on a word. To me mandate, pressured and coerced all mean the same thing....play the ARRL game or else.
You must think the ARRL is made up of all wimps rather than a very political, manipulative, mean and vengefull group of people running the show.

I already explained my feelings about the KW-1. Just because you own one doesnt change things.

Good for your dad, children need that and I guess you never grew up

Those were your own words Todd that I replied to by suggesting you read the Collins publication.


I've read it. The copy I have is a later printing, though. Black and purple paperback, not the hardcover with the nice yellow dust jacket

Read the original and then comment.

From WB4AIO
All things being equal, a 5 kHz bandwidth beats a 3 kHz one every time against broadband noise. But there are cases where you're forced to use 3 if the bandwidth between 3 and 5 has all or most of the noise in it. But... if you're running AM or DSBSC you can eliminate the interference much more elegantly through your inherent diversity transmission.

Collins took it to 6KHz and no lower than 200Hz at the low end. There is no one specific issue on the coercion subject, its scattered in editorials, letters, comments in an article, etc. Its been years since I read the 1945-60 CQ issues in depth but I do remember the highlits of this subject. Dont expect to find the ARRL admitting anything.

Carl

[WB2CAU]

I would suspect that based on the then current FCC regulations, the ARRL, since at that time they were probably considered by many manufacturers to be the active voice of radio amateurs, would recommend to manufacturers to abide by the “minimum band of frequencies” for A3 transmissions.  Designing transmitters that had wide audio bandwidth for A3 operation, potentially causing unnecessary interference, wasting spectrum space, couldn’t be legally sold for Civil Defense activities, would not be a very saleable product within the limited amateur radio communications market. It also would make no sense for the ARRL to advertise products that had the potential to disrupt or danger the activities of many amateur radio operators and the very limited amateur frequencies.

So, with the last sentence in that last paragraph, basically you're confirming the probability that in order to advertise a product in QST or the back of the handbook, the ARRL did force manufacturers to limit speech bandwidth?

[Pete, WA2CWA]

I would suspect that based on the then current FCC regulations, the ARRL, since at that time they were probably considered by many manufacturers to be the active voice of radio amateurs, would recommend to manufacturers to abide by the “minimum band of frequencies” for A3 transmissions.  Designing transmitters that had wide audio bandwidth for A3 operation, potentially causing unnecessary interference, wasting spectrum space, couldn’t be legally sold for Civil Defense activities, would not be a very saleable product within the limited amateur radio communications market. It also would make no sense for the ARRL to advertise products that had the potential to disrupt or danger the activities of many amateur radio operators and the very limited amateur frequencies.

So, with the last sentence in that last paragraph, basically you're confirming that in order to advertise a product in QST or the back of the handbook, the ARRL did force manufacturers to limit speech bandwidth? 

Didn't say that. Read it again. It would seem to me that an ad manager could refuse to run an ad, as a protection to it's readers/members and, in this case, the amateur radio service,  if the product did not comply with FCC regulations and/or stated recommendations(unnecessary interference, wasting spectrum space, CD compliance, etc.). If ad revenue is the only motivation, then advertising is an open door.

[KM1H]

So in a nutshell the FCC did not specify a particular BW for ham service and it was the ARRL that put that in writing.
The argument could have been made that 12kc gave the best fidelity and readability for AM voice

Since the only CD approved ham gear was at VHF, minus the occassional Viking II CDC and none of it sold directly to hams that point is moot. If an emergency actually arose what was handy in a hams home would have been used

[W1DAN]

Folks:

The personal-attack language here should be curbed. There is no need to call someone names or turn this into a “he-said/she said” argument. This is an interesting thread, and it should remain in the technical realm as the results can be fun.

With the thread title “ARRL Controlling Bandwidth Through Manufacturers in 40s-50s”, Carl raises an interesting theory, but in the end this is not backed up by documentation yet, so in my mind it remains a theory or opinion until documented.

It was mentioned that support for this theory could be found by researching the CQ and ARRL publications for articles and equipment advertising during the period concerned. Having paroused the old QST’s in the distant past (the ARRL’s QST Digital Archives serve as a fine research location), I decided to have a fresh look on their web site. Searching their site for “bandwidth” and “phone bandwidth” did not result in any good articles, however I did come across some receiver-based articles. Specifically, James Lamb W1CEI/W1AL promoted CW single signal reception in the 1930s and described improvements in superhet receivers that eventually allowed this. His HRO was one of the first receivers capable of receiving a “single signal”.  

In spending an hour looking at old QST articles online, I did not see a phone transmitter requirement of restricted bandwidth. I also searched each year from 1940 through 1960 for “transmitter bandwidth” and received no response. This searches article titles only, and is not comprehensive. I did see many articles explaining new developments in receiver selectivity, and I do recall the ARRL’s quality control in verifying an advertiser’s claims. Using the ARRL archive search engine did not result in any smoking gun of a requirement that a transmitter manufacturer have limited bandwidth in order to advertize in QST, as I was looking for. Evidence may be in the pages of QST, but one would have to have a library of back issues and look deeper. I request to Carl that he have a gander to see what he can come up with.

Either way, in later years as the bands became crowded, restricted bandwidth became the norm. Why? In December 1962’s QST, George Grammar W1DF looks at estimating transmitted bandwidth using your receiver to look for splatter and unstable carriers. No suggested bandwidth is listed, but this article implied a desired efficiency in bandwidth. I know that the WW2 transmitters of the 1940s often had restricted bandwidths, often generated at the carbon microphone, and we all know the Collins KW1 and other transmitters had restricted audio as Art Collins did not believe in wide bandwidth audio. We here on AM-Fone do know by common knowledge that the late 1940s Viking 1 and 2 as well as the 1950s Ranger and Apache had purposely restricted bandwidths. Was much of this due to “good operating practice” or “mandated” (Oxford definition: “an official order or commission to do something”) by the ARRL? If so there may be documentation from the ARRL to advertisers explaining this goal. Let’s find proof (and HERE is your challenge)! ☺

In later years, as we know in the 1980’s and beyond, the ARRL has promoted restricted bandwidth, and even tried to legislate numbers. In 2005 the regulation by bandwidth plan was offered, and as we know was withdrawn in 2007.

All commercial communications two-way radio systems use limited bandwidth, primarily for occupied bandwidth. There is a mathematical proof that signal to noise is increased as receiver bandwidth is reduced (this is easily proven with a CW signal using various filter bandwidths) and was heavily promoted by Lamb and others in QST in the ‘30s when it was cutting edge. It is also my opinion that intelligibility increases in a noisy channel when the receiver (not transmitter) bandwidth is restricted (I believe this is confirmed in Rhode’s Communications Receivers book). Here the RMS noise is reduced by the factor of bandwidth restriction.

My opinion is that high fidelity AM operation is a relatively recent phenomenon (late ’60s to today) after the 1950’s peak of amateur radio membership. In SW broadcasting, the transmitted low frequencies are often reduced to prevent IM distortion in the transmitter and receiver which is often amplified by selective fading. The high frequencies are restricted to 4.5khz to stay within the standard 10khz broadcast channel. This started in the 1940s. In the end, if one is transmitting a wider bandwidth than the receiver can decode, these extra frequencies are indeed wasted power. Here are a couple of speech bandwidth papers:

http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/bstj/vol17-1938/articles/bstj17-3-358.pdf

http://www.polycom.com/global/documents/whitepapers/effect_of_bandwidth_on_speech_intelligibility_2.pdf

So let’s try to find some proof that the ARRL mandated limited bandwidth in the 1940s, and 1950s. The winner gets a free subscription to AM-Fone! ☺

73,
Dan
W1DAN

[Pete, WA2CWA]

So in a nutshell the FCC did not specify a particular BW for ham service and it was the ARRL that put that in writing.
The argument could have been made that 12kc gave the best fidelity and readability for AM voice

Since the only CD approved ham gear was at VHF, minus the occassional Viking II CDC and none of it sold directly to hams that point is moot. If an emergency actually arose what was handy in a hams home would have been used

In reading through the United States Amateur Regulations printed in 1954, I could not find any reference to a numerical bandwidth other then in the rules governing the Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service which stated 6-Kc.(amplitude modulated telephony).

Other then for defined bandwidth emissions(A1, A3, F2, F3), there wasn't any other equipment requirements listed in the regulations for the Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service. There was also no details requiring equipment manufactured be "CD approved" by the FCC or any other organization. Further, the frequencies available for use in the Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service in the 1954 posted regulations included parts of 160 meters, 75 meters, 10 meters, 6 meters, 2 meters, and 1.25 meters. 40 and 20 meters were not included maybe due to international agreements, skip range, or some other reason(s). 15 meters was not included maybe for the same reasons or maybe the fact it only became an amateur band in March 1953.

If you recall from the original "Amateur's Code", one of the items state: "PATRIOTIC...station and skill always ready for service to country and community". The amateur radio population was expanding rapidly during this time, with people back from WW2 and the Korean War, people settling into the suburbs, high school kids visioning the patriotic dreams, cold war in process, etc., it would seem to me that most amateur manufacturers would also want to capitalize on this expansion. By providing equipment that meets the Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service requirements (A1 bandwidth 100 cycles, A3 bandwidth 6-Kc.), and the FCC's regulation statements that occupying more than the minimum band of frequencies creates unnecessary interference and a waste of spectrum space, the manufacturers come out smelling like roses to all the newly minted amateurs, the FCC, and the ARRL. Further, I doubt fidelity was on the mind of most amateurs during this period. Many of these amateur manufacturers were not in the AM fidelity transmitter business which would add to the design cost and show little in return.  Some of these manufacturers were still designing amateur transmitters using surplus parts. There was no reason to think fidelity. Amateurs just wanted to communicate with other amateurs in the U. S. and internationally. I recall a statement made in a CQ or QST article some time in the mid-50's that "if 100 to 3000 cycles is good enough for telephone communication, it's good enough for amateur communication".

As Dan points out, "Controlling Bandwidth Through Manufacturers in 40s-50s" it's an interesting theory, but as yet, unfounded by any proof. But then again, most back room, black robed gangsters generally don't write things down. And, at this point, who cares. All of those companies are long gone. Next, we're probably going re-hash incentive licensing again for the 100th time.

[WA3VJB]

Carl’s choice of the word mandate might be a bit mismatched, but the people who were running the ARRL achieved the same practical effect through propaganda promoting the use of SSB.

One of the prominent themes in that promotion was to try to undercut AM with value judgments that seemed to favor SSB.  In practice, it was a long struggle for SSB to become accepted because those claimed advantages were not strong enough to motivate.

As manufacturers observed this propaganda, it certainly was possible for them to reduce the allure of AM by making it sound more like SSB.

[WD5JKO]

I have no strong opinion on whether Carl's assertion is correct or not.

What I do have a strong opinion on is the premise that restricting the audio bandwidth, as many vintage BA rigs certainly did, was effective in relieving the AM channel width during that era. 

It is well known that early rolloff around 3 Khz results in a loss of articulation, and therefore intelligibility.

"Measurements consistently show that the intelligibility of speech decreases with
decreasing bandwidth.  For single syllables, 3.3 kHz bandwidth yields an accuracy of
only 75 percent, as opposed to over 95 percent with 7 kHz bandwidth viii"

http://www.polycom.com/global/documents/whitepapers/effect_of_bandwidth_on_speech_intelligibility_2.pdf 

So like the hearing impaired person that misses a key word in a sentence, the person speaking repeats at a higher but more distorted level. So with AM, the transmitted modulation level is raised in order to overcome the loss of intelligibility lost by the high end rolloff.

Running the audio at a higher level brings about higher modulator distortion, and the RF stage modulation linearity becomes more important. Add to this the more frequent over modulation peaks at the 100% downward baseline, and the transmitter bandwidth will be far wider than the ~ 6 Khz desired by the manufacturers, ARRL, FCC, whatever.

So I contend that to reduce channel bandwidth, it would have been more effective to reduce modulator distortion, improve RF stage modulation linearity, and to have a better means to avoid modulation overload.

One more quote from the same source:

"The long-term average energy at 7 kHz in normal speech is
roughly 40 dB below that at 600 Hz"

So get control of the modulation, and with a male voice, "let-er-rip" as far as frequency response goes. 

Jim
WD5JKO

[w1vtp]

Just some thoughts on my recollection "back in the day (please be gentle guys   )."  I remember the era just before the transition between AM being the dominant voice mode and SSB (called by some Single Sideband Suppress Carrier - SSSC).

There was an excitement with SSSC because of the argument of the great advantage of signal to noise and the lack of selective fade distortion.  Back then, the excitement was more the technical challenge and the apparent advantage of power required to achieve a solid copy rather than bandwidth. The reduced bandwidth argument was there, it was just that it was a homebrewers delight and and the excitement over new technical territory to explore.  The Phasing method over the Filter method was certainly on the table for discussion.  The thing I notice more was it was a gentleman's arena on how to achieve design excellence rather than a nasty alley fight.  I guess that came later while I was in college and chose not to put any time into ham radio.

When I surfaced later, I guess I missed the whole thing about any fight between AMers and SSSCers.  I guess there was some sort of AM vs SSSCers,  I just missed that whole thing.  After I resurfaced from my college days and the early marriage / family years, I opted to go 6 meter AM.  I had a ball with that mode (see attached photo of my 56 Ford with Satturn 6 antenna). That lasted me for several years until I finally got in the both AM modes - two sidebands with carrier and SSSC.  My point there is that although I remember the discussion of bandwidth - it was not a major point of contention - I missed that whole nasty part of the Amateur Radio experience.  Maybe I was lucky to be too poor to afford gear and lived at a location that forced me to go into mobile work.  Yeah, I was lucky - I guess.

Al

[K1JJ]

Interesting thread, folks!

I believe the trend towards narrower bandwidth, especially in the late fifties and sixties, was in a large part motivated by smart marketing and manufacturer competition to sell the most rigs. They were reacting to the chaos on the crowded bands. Many hams were using homebrew rigs with little to no bandwidth limitations.

As already stated in the thread, the phone bands were a mass of heterodynes and hams were having trouble punching through to communicate. The bands were simply too crowded for the bandwidths used. With SSB arriving on the scene, conflicts grew even worse. I remember tuning the phone bands in 1963 and can testify to this.

For the average ham, it became a matter of survival and using equipment that could be "heard." "Communications" became the prime directive for most hams, not fidelity.  Perhaps it wasn't even true - maybe Collins is right and narrower bandwidth does not enhance communications. But this is what was advertised and widely believed at the time by mainstream hams.

The resultant ads: " GET MORE AM TALK POWER" "Punch Through the QRM" , etc. As Pete said, clippers became popular in commercial rigs and low powered AM rigs (100W and less) had no choice but to go with the trend of narrower punchy audio bandwidth. (Apache, Valiant, etc) The FCC and ARRL recognized this dilemma and encouraged the narrower solution. After all, wider bandwidth would just aggravate the situation at the time, not help.

Eventually the marketing turned to ssb with the Galaxy "2000 watts pep" "more talk power, no more heterodynes, no carrier, one sideband" type ads, etc. Bottom line is the marketplace dictated the technology that sold best. The "audio restriction" perfect storm was enhanced by the FCC and ARRL agreeing with this idea. Perhaps the FCC and ARRL were first, but the manufacturer ads fanned the flames, the ham marketplace demanded it and then the manufacturers simply filled the perceived needs of the masses.

T

[KM1H]

There was also no details requiring equipment manufactured be "CD approved" by the FCC or any other organization. Further, the frequencies available for use in the Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service in the 1954 posted regulations included parts of 160 meters, 75 meters, 10 meters, 6 meters, 2 meters, and 1.25 meters.

Maybe not in 54 as the CD Yellow Gonset Gooney Birds and the Viking II CDC werent available then. Those specifically were CD approved. I think there were a few others, maybe Polycomm

Carl’s choice of the word mandate might be a bit mismatched, but the people who were running the ARRL achieved the same practical effect through propaganda promoting the use of SSB.

And as I said yesterday, long before your post:

"I like coercion as it better describes the ARRL's process." I also earlier used "pressured" in the same paragraph as mandate which got Todd all in a snit. Thanks to Opcom for suggesting it.

So for now coercion is the operative term.

When I surfaced later, I guess I missed the whole thing about any fight between AMers and SSSCers.  I guess there was some sort of AM vs SSSCers,  I just missed that whole thing.

You missed it all Al but I didnt. Since by the early 60's I was more interested in DX and contesting I scrapped HF AM. OTOH I was using SSB intermittently as early as 57 when I built the W2EWL transmitter that was described in an early 1956 QST. That soon replaced the TBS-50 mobile and a 10A, 10B and 20A cycled thru the shack as funds allowed along with some pretty ugly amps loosely referred to as "linears". My first SSB rig in one box was a HT-37 followed by a 100V in 65 which I still own along with a NCL-2000 from the same year. Im partial to phasing rig audio.

Between roughly 1957-63 the AM vs SSB battles were epic especially on 75 and 20M. On 20, SSB pushed the AMers up the band since most DX was below 14.200 back then so deliberate QRM was ineffective in split operation unless the AMers went out of band hollering or swishing VFO's. The FCC was very active in monitoring back then also. And as many on here already know the war still continues on 75 at times.

There is no argument about receiver SNR improvement as bandwidth is reduced in AM, SSB or CW. OTOH as already stated voice intelligibility decreases at the same time. Back when I was running a pair of TS-930's the thing to do was transmit thru the stock 2.7 filters and listen on the aftermarket 2.1's when QRM dictated it. The benefits were twofold, I pushed the QRM away more and at the same time I was heard better. There were lots of complaints in contest magazines, mostly by those who didnt have 930's.

When the TS-940 came out with the 2.4 as stock I used that most of the time but had  a pair of 1.8's when needed. In a contest or DXing for a new one its not about signal quality....just getting a 5-10 second QSO in the log.

The resultant ads: " GET MORE AM TALK POWER" "Punch Through the QRM" , etc. As Pete said, clippers became popular in commercial rigs and low powered AM rigs (100W and less) had no choice but to go with the trend of narrower punchy audio bandwidth. (Apache, Valiant, etc) The FCC and ARRL recognized this dilemma and encouraged the narrower solution. After all, wider bandwidth would just aggravate the situation at the time, not help

.

The Globe Champs all had clippers in the mid 50's at 200W+ output, dont know about the Kings and very few others had them or compressors. However you could buy aftermarket ones as kits or complete. Some were used on SSB where all it did was create voice distortion and IMD. Comdel came out with a RF speech processor which I soon bought and it helped the 100V a lot....in contests and DXing....by bringing up the average power.

Now most everyone on SSB is running a processor and usually way too high. And before you know it some SSB pinhead will get the ARRL to try and limit bandwidth again thru FCC "mandate".

Carl

[Todd, KA1KAQ]

So for now coercion is the operative term.

Good to see that you can finally admit the error of your ways, Carl. It has nothing to do with anyone being in a snit, it's a choice not to let inaccurate information be promoted as fact here on 'fone.

No one ever disagreed that the ARRL pushed this approach back in the 50s-60s as the bands became more congested and SSB eventually became accepted by the majority. That was pretty much their job.

That's a far cry from the ARRL mandating manufacturing standards. Only the FCC has that authority, and they appear to have been intentionally vague about it for good reason. And as the example I provided proves, coercion was less effective than good business sense, as 'JJ pointed out in his post. You can dismiss it due to lower production numbers than some others, but the fact remains that it happened, and was advertised in QST in both audio configurations for 3 years in the early 50s - long before I found mine in 1988.

Now, if we can just get you to discuss matters in a more civil tone without the need to call names or make snide remarks to those who disagree with you, things will be just dandy. 

[WB4AIO]

Interesting thread, folks!

[...]

The bands were simply too crowded for the bandwidths used. With SSB arriving on the scene, conflicts grew even worse. I remember tuning the phone bands in 1963 and can testify to this.

For the average ham, it became a matter of survival and using equipment that could be "heard." "Communications" became the prime directive for most hams, not fidelity.  Perhaps it wasn't even true - maybe Collins is right and narrower bandwidth does not enhance communications. But this is what was advertised and widely believed at the time by mainstream hams.
[...]

When the bands were getting too crowded, the solution was to lower audio quality standards, and make transmissions as narrow as they could possibly get without making them totally unintelligible. What primitive thinking.

Far better to have raised entrance standards for the more crowded frequencies. Let beginners use the less crowded ones. Encourage the advanced thinkers to develop or perfect things like selectable-sideband sync detection (which lets you hear both sidebands of a DSB signal while eliminating one sideband of interference), stereo sync detection, good quality SSB (maybe even synchronous SSB), and other technologies that perhaps no one has thought of yet because they were too busy turning up their clipper/filter controls to "get loud."

Maybe the difference in people's attitudes toward this subject is rooted in their perception of sound. There are millions of people to whom a stock portable radio or a television's built-in 3" speakers "sound fine to me."

Play them a live recording of an orchestra recorded with Neumann condensers through Klipschorns and it leaves them unimpressed: "Aw, who needs all that fancy stuff? Just as long as I can hear it, I'm fine." (These are also the people who habitually tune in SSB 100 Hz high and hear nothing amiss, and maybe even like it better because "it sounds sharper.")

But to another person, the 3" speaker is absolutely intolerable and the perfectly reproduced symphony is pure, entrancing magic.

I also suspect that many in the former camp have serious hearing loss and have developed a contempt for what they cannot experience.

73,


Kevin, WB4AIO.

[W3RSW]

Perhaps what we need in the modern era of instantaneous computer reaction and control is "frequency compandord AM", i.e., adjacent channel sensors that trigger shrinking or expanding of the audio bandpass or even move the qso just enough to sidestep the adjacent qso.  We do this a lot manually.  Auto control with full override should help along as we're sort of gentlemen about it.....  "yeah righ, but, hey, what good are computers if they can't aid you with your problems.

When crowded by one side "channel", shrink only that sideband automatically.
When crowded by both sides, shrink the transmit bandwidth.  Obviously many games can be played by outside parties to tease or eliminate a poor man's middle AM qso.  Perhaps the qso's would walk all up and down the band, but might be fun to see.  "Take a walk with JJ tonight." 

But as KYV, a certain long time sage, observes, "turn up the wick."  That could be an auto response too.  We might even wish auto bass and treble to match available conditions within the audio bandpass.

[KM1H]

Good to see that you can finally admit the error of your ways, Carl. It has nothing to do with anyone being in a snit, it's a choice not to let inaccurate information be promoted as fact here on 'fone.

Youre a day late again and as you are well aware I considered all 3 terms to be the same for the purpose of this discussion....I hadnt planned on a nit picker wasting bandwidth and my time
In any event the ARRL could and does mandate/pressure/coerce/strong arm/etc  whatever they want to advertisers, its not a democracy.

The ARRL also mandated to advertisers that antenna gain claims would no longer be accepted and that was what....about 50 years ago?  It was recently lifted when they decided that modeling results were acceptable.

If you have anything useful to add about the title of this thread from your vast storehouse of knowledge that you claimed earlier please dont be bashful, we are all waiting.