i was listening to art bell the other day. he was telling about a
broadcast mode that was an improved ssb technique. it greatly improves
the audio distortion problems associated with ssb. can someone shed some
light on this for me?

"Jim" wrote in message
...
i was listening to art bell the other day. he was telling about a
broadcast mode that was an improved ssb technique. it greatly improves
the audio distortion problems associated with ssb. can someone shed some
light on this for me?


I heard it too. I think he called it "ESSB"
and it's bandwidth is 3.6 Khz. To me, it sounded just like AM via ECSS as we
do now. So, they will basically broadcast in ECSS. Is that possible?? Then
we'll have "new" radios that offer this so called new mode But we know
better.

Lucky

"Lucky" wrote in message
...

So, they will basically broadcast in ECSS. Is that possible??

Lucky,

Don't think that's possible. If I understand correctly, ECSS (Exalted
Carrier Selectable Sideband) is when the *receiving* radio generates a
signal to counter fading. (I'm sure there's many who can explain it better
than that!)

Mark.
Auckland
New Zealand.

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...


Is this anything like the reduced carrier DSB signal that CHU uses?

Don't know the answer but CHU uses SSB, not DSB, with carrier. Try tuning it
in with an SSB receiver and switch between USB and LSB to hear the
difference. I forget which sideband is suppressed.

Regards,
Tom

Brenda Ann wrote:

Is this anything like the reduced carrier DSB signal that CHU uses?

Brenda Ann :

Who knows! If Art Bell is talking about it, he may have gotten the idea
from aliens during a visit to Area 51

--
Brian Denley
http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html

In article ,
"Tom Holden" wrote:

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...


Is this anything like the reduced carrier DSB signal that CHU uses?

Don't know the answer but CHU uses SSB, not DSB, with carrier. Try tuning it
in with an SSB receiver and switch between USB and LSB to hear the
difference. I forget which sideband is suppressed.

USB

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

i was listening to art bell the other day. he was telling about a
broadcast mode that was an improved ssb technique. it greatly improves
the audio distortion problems associated with ssb. can someone shed
some
light on this for me?....

Normally , there are no real audio distortion problems
using SSB. It's the other way around...AM is prone to
phase distortion. Thats that funky distortion you often
hear on AM, between fades, etc...You don't hear that on
SSB. The "ESSB" that Art talks about is nothing like ECSS,
which is exalted carrier sideband suppression..."I think thats
the name anyway..." It is nothing more than automatic sideband
selection for AM, to reduce the effects of phase distortion. You
can do the same thing manually....Kinda inconvienient though...
ESSB is nothing more than "ham talk" for SSB that exceeds
the usual 2.4-3.0 kc bandwidth...Say 2.7 as an average width...
Both my 706, and ts-830 are about 2.7 overall... When they say
ESSB, they are referring to using a wider rf bandwidth, in order to
increase the audio bandwidth. With ssb, the rf and audio bandwidth
are the same...On AM, the audio bandwidth is half the rf bandwidth.
So you can see, for a given bandwidth, it makes more sense to run
SSB, vs AM, if you want a wider audio bandwidth. IE: If you get to hog
6 kc, with ssb, your audio bandwidth will extend to 6000 hz. With AM,
you would only get 3000 hz...Myself....I've always felt AM was a mode
that was quite inefficient... MK

If ESSB is nothing more than wider bandwidth, I don't see it as much of
an innovation. They could have made the bandwidth wider years ago.

Art Bell mentioned several times that ESSB gets rid of the Donald Duck
sound to sideband. However, you get the Donald Duck sound when there is
a frequency offset rather than bandwidth limiting.

Like land, they aren't making any more bandwidth. Seems to me we should
conserve bandwidth.

If ESSB is nothing more than wider bandwidth, I don't see it as much of
an innovation. They could have made the bandwidth wider years ago.

You hear some talk like it's some real advancement of the
"state of the art"...But it's nothing really new...
The hams haven't really messed with it until recently, as most
adheared to the appx 3kc bandwidth for ssb in the ham bands..

Art Bell mentioned several times that ESSB gets rid of the Donald Duck
sound to sideband. However, you get the Donald Duck sound when there is
a frequency offset rather than bandwidth limiting.

Correct...All increasing audio bandwidth will do is mainly increase the

high end...Like turning up the treble on a stereo, when it's all the
way
on "bass"...Or... Like comparing the average AM-BC signal, with
FM-BC...
And FM -BC ain't all that great compared to a home source...

Like land, they aren't making any more bandwidth. Seems to me we should
conserve bandwidth.

I have no problems with messing with the so called "hi-fi" ham audio,
but I think it should adhere to a 3 kc width..At least for most of the
bands...
They have enough room on 10m to have a section for "wide-ssb"..
But most of the other bands are too tight for space to run wide
signals..
But.....According to the fcc's latest ruling on the matter, they don't
really
care as long as you don't interfere with another station...Or so it
seems...
They do give the impression they would prefer that ssb be restricted to

the "de facto" 3 kc limit, which has been the assumed limit, and in the
past,
was the actual rule...In recent years, there really is no rule on it as
far as
a specific allowed bandwidth in part 97. Many are taking advantage of
that.
If you use the 3 kc width for ssb on 75m, you have room for 83 QSO's,
without
interference. If you expand out to 4kc, you lose room for 21 qso's as
you will
then only have room for 62 qso's without interference..
When you have several 100 hams vying for the band, using wide
bandwidths
will cause things to get tight. They wouldn't fit now, except that many
share the
same freq...Roundtables, etc...I think if the hams wanna play hi-fi,
they should
consider the costs...I'm all for good audio, but it gets silly after a
point...
Consider that the "hi-fi" guys can only talk to other hi-fi guys, if
they want to
be heard in all their wide glory...It will be a total waste to most ,
unless they
have a radio with wide filter capability. To the average joe with a
stock radio,
they just sound fatter than average due to all the usual "rack"
processing...
But they can't hear the improvement in high end, as their radios aren't
capable.
You can stay within 3 kc, and still have very good sounding audio.
Many
"rack" boys and girls stay within 3 kc...Most stock radios aren't that
wide...
Most are 2.4, plus any filter slope...:/ Most average about 2.7 kc as
far
as the usable range...But many of the newer high end radios can
go pretty wide, receive, or transmit. Myself, I think things should
stay as they
have been...Or assumed anyway...3 kc....3 kc is the law in
Canada...Used to
be here in the US I'm pretty sure, until they decided to omit it from
part 97...
But even with the vaque wording, to me , part 97 still implies the use
of 3 kc for
ssb. If you read it real carefully, you can see it in two places where
it's *implied*
I don't see why they don't just decide on a limit, and state
such....They probably
will have to do it sooner or later...Instead, they decided to reach an
undecision
and let everyone do pretty much as they please for now. Within reason
anyway..
I bet if you had a qso at 3.800 and a ham plops in on 3.795, with a
8-10 kc wide
signal, the fcc will consider it interference to the one on 3.800.
They should....
I would...One QSO per every 8-10 kc on 75m, seems fairly silly to me,
just to
be able to sound like Howard Stern....
MK