wrote:
Miso:

Eh, the author confuses DSB and AM. I wouldn't put much faith in
his/her analysis.

I wouldn't put much faith in someone who is confused over the gender of
the name 'Phil'. Ludicrous and a "poisoning the well" logic fallacy.

"phil" is in the file name, not the document.


DSB never has a carrier. There is no such thing as DSB and DSB without
a carrier, just DSB.

Oh sure, you read it on the net, so it must be right. I stand by my
statements.

Just because a few people get it wrong on the net, doesn't make it
right. I've seen DSBAM used for AM, DSBSC used for DSB. Check out this
college text:
http://www.utdallas.edu/~mtacca/cour...-2006/Exp3.pdf
In the equation, you would have to add a DC bias in x(t) to produce AM.
Hence they are producing DSB, pure and simple.

http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_double-sid...nsmission.html
http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_double-sid...nsmission.html
http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_amplitude_modulation.html



Telamon:

Listening to AMBCB in the car where I don't have a sync detector and
home where I do sure makes me wish I had it in the car.

See my article "ferrite rods make poor car antennas".

The improvement in reception most radios have with sync detection is
huge not small and so the improvement is not open to argument.

Is SAM on your RX340 a huge improvement over SSB? (Yes it's a trap.)

Happy Holidays!
phil
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phils_radio_articles/ [Files Only]