Bob Dobbs wrote:
Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

What's interesting about them is that some are real experimenters
and run transmitters with superb fidelity, some sounding better than
commercial broadcast stations.

When are HAMs going to start hacking the iBiquity codec
and going HD-IBOC?
Would be more interesting than some of the ego power trips on 80m.

We're trying to avoid proprietary code on the ham bands, for obvious
reasons. Amplitude Modulation is a pretty mature technology; they got
into PDM, PWM, etc. way before switch mode power supplies and Class D
audio amps.

On Nov 11, 1:20*pm, RHF wrote:
On Nov 11, 9:56*am, Bob Dobbs wrote:

Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

What's interesting about them is that some are real experimenters
and run transmitters with superb fidelity, some sounding better than
commercial broadcast stations.

When are HAMs going to start hacking the iBiquity codec
and going HD-IBOC?
Would be more interesting than some of the ego power trips on 80m.

I would think that HAMs would try an adapt
to and use DRM Transmission versus IBOC.

DRM is Direct Digital and more efficient for
one-to-one direct communications.

IBOC is a Hybrid Analog/Digital and is only
valuable as a backwardly compatible System
for Transitioning from Analog to Digital.

~ RHF
*.

Voice communications are vulgar.

On Nov 11, 12:40*pm, Steve wrote:
On Nov 11, 1:20*pm, RHF wrote:



On Nov 11, 9:56*am, Bob Dobbs wrote:

Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

What's interesting about them is that some are real experimenters
and run transmitters with superb fidelity, some sounding better than
commercial broadcast stations.

When are HAMs going to start hacking the iBiquity codec
and going HD-IBOC?
Would be more interesting than some of the ego power trips on 80m.

I would think that HAMs would try an adapt
to and use DRM Transmission versus IBOC.

DRM is Direct Digital and more efficient for
one-to-one direct communications.

IBOC is a Hybrid Analog/Digital and is only
valuable as a backwardly compatible System
for Transitioning from Analog to Digital.

~ RHF
*.

- Voice communications are vulgar.

Most "Voice Communications" are in the 'vulgar'.

'language' the code-of-sounds transmitted
by the human voice conveying meaning ~ RHF©

On 10-11-11 02:10 PM, RHF wrote:

- Voice communications are vulgar.

Most "Voice Communications" are in the 'vulgar'.


The word is 'vulgate'. It's Latin for 'the common language' or the
language of the masses. Vulgar is a derivation, meaning 'common' or of
the lower classes.




mike

Herbert Visser wrote:

experimental bent. Very few AM hams are running stock commercial gear;
usually, at the very least, it is modified for better quality audio.

Better than Collins tube gear? How?

Hearing the best of these operators on a receiver with superb audio --
say, an SP-600 in the 13 kHz bandwidth, with the detector output fed
into a high-fidelity amplifier driving a pair of AR-3ax speakers --
brings you the true magic of radio in a way that must be heard to be

Sounds to good to be true :-). I think it's time that we're also going
to start these AM-experiments over here in Europe.

Herbert Visser

There's no shortage of them around here, perhaps you could take a few
with you?

On 11/13/2010 10:36 AM, dave wrote:
Herbert Visser wrote:

experimental bent. Very few AM hams are running stock commercial
gear;
usually, at the very least, it is modified for better quality audio.

Better than Collins tube gear? How?



Stock KW-1s and 32Vs have fairly narrow "communications quality"
audio with middling distortion, though not as bad as some other
manufacturers. The experimental AM crowd often strives for audio
far, far beyond that -- trying to achieve HF audio several degrees
better than, say, KHJ's in its golden days. Some are successful.

In short: lower distortion at higher modulation densities; enhanced
frequency response despite the limitations of the medium;
maintaining excellent intelligibility while retaining high perceived
quality; and that indefinable something that makes for appealing,
beautiful sound.


With every good wish,


Kevin, WB4AIO.
--
http://nationalvanguard.org/
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
On 11/13/2010 1:45 PM, dave wrote:
Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
On 11/13/2010 10:36 AM, dave wrote:
Herbert Visser wrote:

experimental bent. Very few AM hams are running stock commercial
gear;
usually, at the very least, it is modified for better quality
audio.

Better than Collins tube gear? How?



Stock KW-1s and 32Vs have fairly narrow "communications quality"
audio
with middling distortion, though not as bad as some other
manufacturers.
The experimental AM crowd often strives for audio far, far beyond
that
-- trying to achieve HF audio several degrees better than, say,
KHJ's in
its golden days. Some are successful.

In short: lower distortion at higher modulation densities; enhanced
frequency response despite the limitations of the medium; maintaining
excellent intelligibility while retaining high perceived quality; and
that indefinable something that makes for appealing, beautiful sound.


With every good wish,


Kevin, WB4AIO.

Odd. Transmitters back then had to pass "Proof of performance" which
required AF response to 10 kilocycles per second be tested annually.
I worked in a dozen AM stations during the McLendon/Ron Jacobs
"Golden Age". Continental and Collins transmitters sounded great out
of the box. Gates was junk (still is). RCA, GE and Western Electric
also built quirky stuff, but Collins and Continental sounded sweet,
with minimal processing. The magic was in the iron in those days;
good transformers built by artisans are fast disappearing.


I agree with your assessment of old Collins broadcast gear -- I thought
you were talking about Collins amateur gear.

The best-sounding AM transmitters, in my experience, have been digitally
modulated or used low-level balanced modulators to generate AM. But most
of the Collins tube gear was sweet, no doubt.



I think the top photo is from Joe Walsh's house in Sherman Oaks.

http://www.radionational.org/broadca..._ham_bands.htm

On 11/13/2010 2:34 PM, dave wrote:
Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
On 11/13/2010 1:45 PM, dave wrote:
Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
On 11/13/2010 10:36 AM, dave wrote:
Herbert Visser wrote:

experimental bent. Very few AM hams are running stock commercial
gear;
usually, at the very least, it is modified for better quality
audio.

Better than Collins tube gear? How?



Stock KW-1s and 32Vs have fairly narrow "communications quality"
audio
with middling distortion, though not as bad as some other
manufacturers.
The experimental AM crowd often strives for audio far, far beyond
that
-- trying to achieve HF audio several degrees better than, say,
KHJ's in
its golden days. Some are successful.

In short: lower distortion at higher modulation densities; enhanced
frequency response despite the limitations of the medium;
maintaining
excellent intelligibility while retaining high perceived
quality; and
that indefinable something that makes for appealing, beautiful
sound.


With every good wish,


Kevin, WB4AIO.

Odd. Transmitters back then had to pass "Proof of performance" which
required AF response to 10 kilocycles per second be tested annually.
I worked in a dozen AM stations during the McLendon/Ron Jacobs
"Golden Age". Continental and Collins transmitters sounded great out
of the box. Gates was junk (still is). RCA, GE and Western Electric
also built quirky stuff, but Collins and Continental sounded sweet,
with minimal processing. The magic was in the iron in those days;
good transformers built by artisans are fast disappearing.


I agree with your assessment of old Collins broadcast gear -- I
thought
you were talking about Collins amateur gear.

The best-sounding AM transmitters, in my experience, have been
digitally
modulated or used low-level balanced modulators to generate AM.
But most
of the Collins tube gear was sweet, no doubt.



I think the top photo is from Joe Walsh's house in Sherman Oaks.

http://www.radionational.org/broadca..._ham_bands.htm






Very nice; thank you!

It appears that the lower photos are from KO6NM, Mike Dorrough, the
inventor of multiband audio processing. And the site is run by
N2SAG, a regular Liberty Net participant. What a confluence of
coincidences!


All the best,


Kevin, WB4AIO.
--
http://nationalvanguard.org/
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
On 11/13/2010 2:34 PM, dave wrote:
Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
On 11/13/2010 1:45 PM, dave wrote:
Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
On 11/13/2010 10:36 AM, dave wrote:
Herbert Visser wrote:

experimental bent. Very few AM hams are running stock commercial
gear;
usually, at the very least, it is modified for better quality
audio.

Better than Collins tube gear? How?



Stock KW-1s and 32Vs have fairly narrow "communications quality"
audio
with middling distortion, though not as bad as some other
manufacturers.
The experimental AM crowd often strives for audio far, far beyond
that
-- trying to achieve HF audio several degrees better than, say,
KHJ's in
its golden days. Some are successful.

In short: lower distortion at higher modulation densities; enhanced
frequency response despite the limitations of the medium;
maintaining
excellent intelligibility while retaining high perceived
quality; and
that indefinable something that makes for appealing, beautiful
sound.


With every good wish,


Kevin, WB4AIO.

Odd. Transmitters back then had to pass "Proof of performance" which
required AF response to 10 kilocycles per second be tested annually.
I worked in a dozen AM stations during the McLendon/Ron Jacobs
"Golden Age". Continental and Collins transmitters sounded great out
of the box. Gates was junk (still is). RCA, GE and Western Electric
also built quirky stuff, but Collins and Continental sounded sweet,
with minimal processing. The magic was in the iron in those days;
good transformers built by artisans are fast disappearing.


I agree with your assessment of old Collins broadcast gear -- I
thought
you were talking about Collins amateur gear.

The best-sounding AM transmitters, in my experience, have been
digitally
modulated or used low-level balanced modulators to generate AM.
But most
of the Collins tube gear was sweet, no doubt.



I think the top photo is from Joe Walsh's house in Sherman Oaks.

http://www.radionational.org/broadca..._ham_bands.htm






Very nice; thank you!

It appears that the lower photos are from KO6NM, Mike Dorrough, the
inventor of multiband audio processing. And the site is run by N2SAG, a
regular Liberty Net participant. What a confluence of coincidences!


All the best,


Kevin, WB4AIO.

If you live in the San Fernando Valley not so odd.

dave wrote:
Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

Very nice; thank you!

It appears that the lower photos are from KO6NM, Mike Dorrough, the
inventor of multiband audio processing. And the site is run by N2SAG, a
regular Liberty Net participant. What a confluence of coincidences!


All the best,


Kevin, WB4AIO.

If you live in the San Fernando Valley not so odd.

I think you both miss the point, however. SSB can sound BETTER than AM.
It requires more than a 3 KHz channel to do so, but the quality is
comparable to sync detection on DSB AM.