| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 16.03.00 15:11l 215 Lines 7628 Bytes #-9546 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_71D
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/71D
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0ROF<DB0AIS<DB0ME<ON6AR<PI8HWB<PI8HGL<
PE1MVX<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 000314/0343Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:55980 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g24
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA31379 ; Tue, 14 Mar 00 03:01:35 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.70/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00018330 ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:27:30 MET
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 00 19:25:50 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_71D>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 2000/71D
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> Been there, done it. I'm passing the hat to get the pore guy an html
> generator to replace his iteration of Notepad for the Web. Care to
> contribute?
At first I thought you were merely an asshole...
> I didn't "assume" anything, I'm allergic to bloated bandwidth, all I
> actually did was pose a question.
Bloated bandwidth"?? How does a "degreed engineer" define that?
Is 2 kHz too wide for a "ham radio degreed operator?"
Find another woman and give us a break...
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 04:51:34 GMT
From: kelly@dvol.com (Brian Kelly)
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 09:02:24 -0600, W6RCecilA <Cecil.A.Moore@IEEE.org>
wrote:
>Brian Kelly wrote:
>> Now there's a "heads up" if there ever was a heads up! Perhaps it
>> sucks up a "tad more spectrum space" than AM does it? Hmmm?
>
>But the question is not how much spectrum it occupies.
>
Aw c'mon, Cecil, sure it does. Consider what 20m phone would sound
like today if either AM or NBFM were the dominant HF phone modes
instead of ssb which is roughly half the bandwidth of AM/NBFM.
Conservation of spectrum space wrt to getting the job done is very
much a legitimate concern and mode advantage.
>
>The question
>is how much throughput and voice recovery quality is accomplished
>in that spectrum.
>
That brings "philosophical" issues into the game. Or call it
preferences or priorities or expectations or whatever. For my own part
I couldn't care less about "hi-fi" ham phone qsos, what I do care
about is being able to squeeze the incoming intelligence out of the
other guy's voice transmission particularly under weak signal and/or
difficult qrm/qsb/qrn condx. If I want whizzy audio I do my Bonnie
Raitt CDs with the Yamaha and Polks, not with dx on 75 or 20 phone and
I ain't out here by myself. Other folks views and objectives are in
line with S9+20 hi-fi armchair copy and would probably just love 2%
THD 20m qsos. To each their own, we all have tickets to ride.
>
Ideally of course some new mode would provide both. If it does not
then there will be "problems". Wherin I suspect lies the big challenge
for the developers amongst us.
>
>Guess we'll see next month. It does mention
>"1800-baud, multi-carrier" format. And after all, it's just a first
>step. The land speed record didn't break the sound-barrier on the
>first try.
>
I agree with that.
>
>Digital voice promises no apparent QRM, QRN, or QSB. That
>characteristic should be worth a little spectrum.
>
If you're talking significant legislated setasides on the primary HF
bands for the convenience of a few digital experimenters to do their
thing I'll go to the wall to the extent possible to defeat any such
proposal as lame as such efforts might be. Stuff anything even
resembling spread rectum, ham cell phone "channels" and "Internet
portals" on HF, take those to 925MHz where the bandwith is available
to do those without screwing up the HF bands for the rest of us.
>
If you're talking a slice here and there perhaps on the high ends of,
let's say, 17 or 15m where reasonable bandwith HF digital phone
experimentation could and I think should be legalized under controlled
condx without materially impacting current ops yeah, I could support
that.
>
>Of course, some
>opposed to change of any kind will say it's not ham radio without
>QRM, QRN, and QSB.
>--
Obviously. We're clearly overrun with Luddites. The problem being of
course that if you kill the Luddites ya doan have much left. Not my
problem because I ain't one of those, you're preaching to the choir if
I'm copying you correctly Cecil.
>
Dunno how many times self and some others have harped on the fact that
NO new HF modes digital or otherwise will fly in volume unless the
market sees a clear justification based on communications
effectiveness in all or at least most of it's translations in fair and
square competition for said market like ssb basically did when it beat
out AM and NBFM. In other words just because it's "digital" don't
expect any "special deals" from the market. Including spectrum space
and bandwidth "deals". Get it on the air under the same rules the rest
of the competitors follow and let the cards fall where they will.
>
And don't even think about anybody giving up space just so that the
few who are into hi-fi digital 20m phone can glom excessive bandwidth
for their own amusement.
>
>73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
>
w3rv
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 04:31:50 GMT
From: kelly@dvol.com (Brian Kelly)
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 07:06:29 -0800, "Dana H. Myers K6JQ"
<dana@source.net> wrote:
>Brian Kelly wrote:
>
>> I don't get QEX, what's up?
>
>QEX is so worthwhile to technically-minded radio experimenters, it is
>your loss not to get it, especially now that it is combined with CommQuart.
>
I'm a degreed engineer with close to a half century in my technology.
Which is not electronics or communications or matters digital. I'm a
ham radio operator, not an experimenter so I don't do QEX. Is that OK
or what?
>
>Steve Sampson previously posted this reference to the DVHF project:
> http://www.chbrain.dircon.co.uk/dvhf.html
>
Been there, done it. I'm passing the hat to get the pore guy an html
generator to replace his iteration of Notepad for the Web. Care to
contribute?
>
>If this is the same project, it appears that the modem is designed to
>fit into a standard SSB-width channel. Why did you assume otherwise?
>
I didn't "assume" anything, I'm allergic to bloated bandwidth, all I
actually did was pose a question.
>--
>Dana K6JQ DoD #j
>Dana@Source.Net
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 06:11:06 GMT
From: kelly@dvol.com (Brian Kelly)
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 22:51:17 -0600, "Steve Sampson"
<ssampson@usa-site.net> wrote:
>"Brian Kelly" wrote
>
>> I'm a degreed engineer with close to a half century in my technology.
>> Which is not electronics or communications or matters digital. I'm a
>> ham radio operator, not an experimenter so I don't do QEX. Is that OK
>> or what?
>
>You can be a pecker-puffer for all we care. If you don't give a crap
>about QEX, then why does the group need to know that?
>
>> Been there, done it. I'm passing the hat to get the pore guy an html
>> generator to replace his iteration of Notepad for the Web. Care to
>> contribute?
>
>At first I thought you were merely an asshole...
>
>> I didn't "assume" anything, I'm allergic to bloated bandwidth, all I
>> actually did was pose a question.
>
>Bloated bandwidth"?? How does a "degreed engineer" define that?
>Is 2 kHz too wide for a "ham radio degreed operator?"
>
>Find another woman and give us a break...
>
I went out on the net to find out what your callsign was just for
openers and QRZ.com came back "There are 0 records matching STEVE
SAMPSON". Whatta huge surprise. 10-4 Good Buddy?
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 05:59:01 GMT
From: kelly@dvol.com (Brian Kelly)
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 10:12:44 -0500, Gary Coffman <ke4zv@bellsouth.net>
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_71E
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
