In article , Alun
writes:

It has worse S/N performance than SSB

That depends entirely on the type of encoding and modulation used,
doesn't it?
Can you categorically say that digital voice can *never* outperform
SSB?

No. One day it might. But not yet.

Even if the data rate is slowed down?

If there's anything that deserves spectrum space for experimentation,
it's digital modes, not analog voice modes.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article , Alun
writes:


It has worse S/N performance than SSB

That depends entirely on the type of encoding and modulation used,
doesn't it?
Can you categorically say that digital voice can *never* outperform
SSB?

No. One day it might. But not yet.


Even if the data rate is slowed down?

If there's anything that deserves spectrum space for experimentation,
it's digital modes, not analog voice modes.


DId you read the review in QST about the digital box you attach to your
HF rig?

It sounded like a pretty good thing, until they pointed out it's fatal
deficiency near the end. I shouldn't b that harsh - if it is a fixed
frequency application, then it won't be too bad.

You just have to be listening at the right frequency at the beginning of
a transmission, or it's no hearee! My guess is that anything that will
allow you to pick up a transmission in the middle of a transmission will
boost the bandwidth requirements up quite a bit.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Even if the data rate is slowed down?

If there's anything that deserves spectrum space for experimentation,
it's digital modes, not analog voice modes.


DId you read the review in QST about the digital box you attach to your

HF rig?

It sounded like a pretty good thing, until they pointed out it's fatal
deficiency near the end. I shouldn't b that harsh - if it is a fixed
frequency application, then it won't be too bad.

You just have to be listening at the right frequency at the beginning of
a transmission, or it's no hearee! My guess is that anything that will
allow you to pick up a transmission in the middle of a transmission will
boost the bandwidth requirements up quite a bit.

It's just one try at it. There are other ways.

For example, listen to people talk sometime and notice how many pauses most
people insert in their speech. Some folks' speech is full of umms and ahhs
because they are mentally trying to "hold the VOX". (I'm not making this up -
listen to *how* people speak, rather than what they are saying, and note how
the odd patterns!)

Suppose that before modulation the digitized signal compressed the pauses
and on the receive end they were expanded. Or maybe left out if they were over
a certain length. The digital signal could be sent at a slower pace and yet
catch up during the pauses.

Maybe simply trade bandwidth for speech rate. You stop talking and the rig
takes a few seconds to finish sending - no problem!

Point is, a lot of experimentation in this area is hampered or discouraged by
the current rules. That's why folks like Hans and I commented *against* ARRL's
"novice refarming" proposal some time back, saying the kHz would be better
reused as a digital sandbox rather than simply more SSB space.

73 de Jim, N2EY