Narrowband Ham
- Thread starter BillQuinn
- Start date
- Status
I think your 202 is safe, remember there are hams using 2 meter radios years older than the 202 and they are not going to change.
k9rzz
Member
I thought this was going to be about CW.
I witnessed a an older hammie with his thumbwheel-tuned Icom portable this last summer being miffed that he couldn't participate in a pubic service event because his ancient portable didn't have PL, which is required for the repeater they used. It was comical, to say the least.
I understand that not everyone has the means or desire to buy the latest and greatest equipment but this is not a cheap hobby, which some hammies think it should be. At this point, there is no reason a PL/DPL-capable radio is not in the hands of anyone wanting to participate in the public service aspect of the hobby. It's called a hobby for a reason, so if one can't afford it then they are free to explore other avenues
Long story short, don't expect the 12.5 KHz plan to get much support...
I understand that not everyone has the means or desire to buy the latest and greatest equipment but this is not a cheap hobby, which some hammies think it should be. At this point, there is no reason a PL/DPL-capable radio is not in the hands of anyone wanting to participate in the public service aspect of the hobby. It's called a hobby for a reason, so if one can't afford it then they are free to explore other avenues
Long story short, don't expect the 12.5 KHz plan to get much support...
N8IAA
Member
You do realize that most newer--mid-90's until the present--have 12.5Khz steps in their programming? Most even have a NFM setting for audio. Speaking of the IC-2, you would be surprised at how many hams in the South are still carrying them to hamfests
) My first ht was a Yaesu thumbwheel in 1986 hooked to a brick in the car. My how it has changed in 20+ years. Larry
N
N_Jay
Guest
You do realize that most newer--mid-90's until the present--have 12.5Khz steps in their programming? Most even have a NFM setting for audio. Speaking of the IC-2, you would be surprised at how many hams in the South are still carrying them to hamfests
Larry
Having a 12.5 kHz audio setting is only a small part of the issue.
You need lighter IF filtering for adjacent channel rejection, and much better modulation control.
These are two areas where ham radios often fall short of even the specification of 25 kHz commercial radios.
Unless there is a real squeeze on frequencies you won't see narrowband. I think most people would agree that the 2M band is crowded with repeaters, but doesn't come any where near to being as croweded as the part 90 bands.
As an EC I will second the notion of get a radio with PL. When I think you can buy a single band portable between 100 and 300 dollars, there is no excuse not to have PL capability. Think about what you can buy for 100 dollars now, tank of gas, half a car of groceries, 6 DVD movies, 1 night out with friends.
As an EC I will second the notion of get a radio with PL. When I think you can buy a single band portable between 100 and 300 dollars, there is no excuse not to have PL capability. Think about what you can buy for 100 dollars now, tank of gas, half a car of groceries, 6 DVD movies, 1 night out with friends.
N
N_Jay
Guest
Besides it would not be an FCC issue, it would be the ARRL or some local frequency coordinator who would have to propose and enforce it.
Ham NFM
I agree with N_J_H here. Much more is involved in changing actual modulation bandwidth usage than just spacing and even audio level. Done correctly you don't need to artificially raise the audio to match (what is currently) standard LMR analog FM when switched to lower deviation NFM. At the VERY least I think VHF and UHF Ham rigs should start using TCXO's as standard and use selectable "normal" and "tight" IF filters; but I know I am in the minority here.
I am of the (again, admittedly minority) opinion that Ham rigs should try much harder to follow commercial radio trends in design and specs. I know this will drive the cost up and I know I have the choice to use commercial gear if I so desire but I still think some sort of cost reduced compromise can be met in terms of the engineering. The Ham radio manufacturers put a lot of money into admittedly "cool and fun" features so I think some of that could be diverted to making more robust RF designs.
But I know I am relieving liquid form bodily waste products against the prevailing wind patterns here...
I remember in my early Ham days going to a major Hamfest with some coworkers and deciding on some simplex 70cm simplex frequencies to use. I put forth the brilliant idea of using 12.5KHz splinter freq's since it seemed so few other hams did so. What a cluster (you fill it in) that was! I got a major wake up call as to how poor the IF filtering was in typical Ham HT's!! But I will say one thing about that experience - THAT was a serious RF congestion system model!! I can certainly see where having TRUE NFM capability would have been a big asset in the Ham HT's!!
So, at least for Hamfests, it would be usefull!
Loan voice in the wilderness...I know, I know!
-Mike
I agree with N_J_H here. Much more is involved in changing actual modulation bandwidth usage than just spacing and even audio level. Done correctly you don't need to artificially raise the audio to match (what is currently) standard LMR analog FM when switched to lower deviation NFM. At the VERY least I think VHF and UHF Ham rigs should start using TCXO's as standard and use selectable "normal" and "tight" IF filters; but I know I am in the minority here.
I am of the (again, admittedly minority) opinion that Ham rigs should try much harder to follow commercial radio trends in design and specs. I know this will drive the cost up and I know I have the choice to use commercial gear if I so desire but I still think some sort of cost reduced compromise can be met in terms of the engineering. The Ham radio manufacturers put a lot of money into admittedly "cool and fun" features so I think some of that could be diverted to making more robust RF designs.
But I know I am relieving liquid form bodily waste products against the prevailing wind patterns here...
I remember in my early Ham days going to a major Hamfest with some coworkers and deciding on some simplex 70cm simplex frequencies to use. I put forth the brilliant idea of using 12.5KHz splinter freq's since it seemed so few other hams did so. What a cluster (you fill it in) that was! I got a major wake up call as to how poor the IF filtering was in typical Ham HT's!! But I will say one thing about that experience - THAT was a serious RF congestion system model!! I can certainly see where having TRUE NFM capability would have been a big asset in the Ham HT's!!
So, at least for Hamfests, it would be usefull!
Loan voice in the wilderness...I know, I know!
-Mike
N8IAA
Member
Mike, you are not alone in the woods! Ham radios with too many bells and whistles can be likened to the newer generation of scanners. A lot of fluff, and not enough guts. Radios need to get up to commercial standards. Not just 5, 15, and 25Khz steps, but, 6.25 and 7.5Khz with the proper filtering. But, then, there are those thumbwheel radios)
Larry
)Larry
Thanks!
Larry,
Thanks for the support, but we are way too few, I'm afraid! And I feel pretty much the same about scanners but I'm likely even more alone on that front!
Kind of an aside but related, one of my pet peeves is the cellphone style addiction of the uninitiated radio user. I mean the "Make it smaller, make it smaller...you know like a cellphone...I mean c'mon, man, wake up and join the 21st century!!" crowd. Such folk do not realize at all how compromised and specific a consumer cellphone RF section is! An antenna that barely exists ("...'cause, ya know, antennas are SOOO old fashioned!"), one, maybe two bands to cover and all above 800MHz plus a receiver designed to work in high level desired signal levels wherein a large part of the adjacent channel rejection is achieved by having the desired signal on channel be 30dB above the undesired adjacent channel energy! And don't forget the digital modulation automatic blemish hiding feature - every bit of badness is just "dropouts"; it doesn't matter whether it's intermod, adjacent channel interference, images, or overload, it's all "just dropouts". To the user, it's transparent - to them it's just a "coverage problem area"..."ehhh, [fill in provider] just needs to build more towers around here", etc. and so forth ad infinitum, ad nausium. Yeah those itty-bitty radios covering DC to daylight are so cool...pffft! Sorry but the performance matches the size even if you can't recognize it - picking up a large signal shortwave broadcaster or local FM broadcaster or even your local Ham repeater and/or PD repeater do NOT count!!
Give me real RF stages properly matched and shielded with filtering components that are allowed to FOLLOW the laws of physics without compromise and I'll take the size and weight, thank you very much!!
Rant over, sorry!
-Mike
Larry,
Thanks for the support, but we are way too few, I'm afraid! And I feel pretty much the same about scanners but I'm likely even more alone on that front!
Kind of an aside but related, one of my pet peeves is the cellphone style addiction of the uninitiated radio user. I mean the "Make it smaller, make it smaller...you know like a cellphone...I mean c'mon, man, wake up and join the 21st century!!" crowd. Such folk do not realize at all how compromised and specific a consumer cellphone RF section is! An antenna that barely exists ("...'cause, ya know, antennas are SOOO old fashioned!"), one, maybe two bands to cover and all above 800MHz plus a receiver designed to work in high level desired signal levels wherein a large part of the adjacent channel rejection is achieved by having the desired signal on channel be 30dB above the undesired adjacent channel energy! And don't forget the digital modulation automatic blemish hiding feature - every bit of badness is just "dropouts"; it doesn't matter whether it's intermod, adjacent channel interference, images, or overload, it's all "just dropouts". To the user, it's transparent - to them it's just a "coverage problem area"..."ehhh, [fill in provider] just needs to build more towers around here", etc. and so forth ad infinitum, ad nausium. Yeah those itty-bitty radios covering DC to daylight are so cool...pffft! Sorry but the performance matches the size even if you can't recognize it - picking up a large signal shortwave broadcaster or local FM broadcaster or even your local Ham repeater and/or PD repeater do NOT count!!
Give me real RF stages properly matched and shielded with filtering components that are allowed to FOLLOW the laws of physics without compromise and I'll take the size and weight, thank you very much!!
Rant over, sorry!
-Mike
N8IAA
Member
I had two ht's that I wish that never had been sold: my W32A and an Alinco DJ-G5. Both had excellent audio and worked great. I have a DJ-X10 that is on the chassis of the G5 and is an outstanding receiver. But, I can't get the Ni-Mh batteries anymore. No one makes them. There is nothing made in the present day (I bought this radio back in the mid-90's) that even comes close. I keep wanting to take it to hamfests and sell it, but, keep not doing it. I would love to have a small tabletop unit for hf, but, again, they keep shrinking in size and growing in price. Why can't they build a scanner in a metal case?? Oh, wait, cellphone mentality
My rant
Larry
My rant
Larry
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
The two meter band above 146 MHz is channelized at 15 kHz, not 25, so a 12.5 kHz step size would make no sense there. The lower FM subband (below 146) is channelized at 20 kHz, so again 12.5 doesn't make sense.
Narrowbanding would involve 7.5 kHz and 10 kHz channel spacing in those subbands.
Naturally, I am referring to U.S. bandplans.
Narrowbanding would involve 7.5 kHz and 10 kHz channel spacing in those subbands.
Naturally, I am referring to U.S. bandplans.
I was in a restaurant in the town of Mammoth Lakes, Calif. one evening and went into the mens room. As is my custom, I had my Kenwood TH-F6A on my belt. A gentlemen was at my back when I went through the door and as soon as we got inside the restroom he asked what kind of cell phone was on my belt. He remarked how huge it was and stated "and that enormous antenna." I explained that it was not a cell phone and he answered "than what could it possibly be." When I explained that it was a ham radio and he said he did not know anything about ham radio. He asked how far I could transmit with it and I explained that the repeater on Mammoth Mountain, which I then "kerchunked," allowed me to talk over the Sierra and into Fresno and across the Central Valley to Interstate 5. I then added that I could also work two different repeaters on two different bands that we located on Silver Peak near Bishop, about 50 miles away, and that repeater was linked to repeaters all over California and Arizona, all built entirely by volunteers, and that I could talk with hams in Phoenix and the Bay Area. I explained that my handheld was capable of using three different radio bands. He replied "but I thought ham radios were huge, sat on desks, and that you had to use Morse code." I explained that is not the case and hams can use many different radio bands. That we could talk with the Space Shuttle, bounce signals off the moon, and speak directly, with no phone lines or repeaters, to people all over the world, depending on what type of radio and antennas we used.
He was amazed, but then stated "but why is that radio so big." I explained that it was capable of transmitting with 5 watts of power, while a cell phone only used power measured in milliwatts. I explained the huge infrastructure required for a cell phone, with tens of thousands of cell sites around the country. I explained that hams could always get through when all other means of communications fail. His final statement was, "but that radio is so huge!" I was very puzzled about his reactions until I realized that he just could not think outside his perception of a cell phone. So this perception carries over for new hams who have owned a cell phone before taking up the hobby.
I bought the Kenwood because it not only has 2m/70cm, but the 1.25 meter band as well, with the capability of working all three with 5 watts. No other handheld has this capability. I also use the Kenwood when I'm backpacking and for that activity you need to be very conscious of the weight of each piece of equipment. I know that I have compromised performance somewhat, but a larger, commercial grade radio (I own two Bendix-Kings) is too heavy and bulky. I have carried the Kings (one at a time) in the backcountry, but finding room for them is tough and they are truly "bricks."
I would like to see ham radios built with a metal case and tighter specifications. The price would increase, but would still be in range of what I would consider affordability. We should still have lower cost radios available for those whose budget does not allow a more expensive model. For those who say ham radio is expensive (you've heard that ham stands for Has Adequate Money), I would ask that other hobbies be compared to ham radio. Think about skiing, bicycle riding (my newest road bicycle cost just under $3,000), water skiing, sailing, antique cars, coin collecting, traveling, or taking a family to amusement parks, and other devices such as audio systems, HD TV's, PDA's, laptops, and all the other goodies people tend to buy without much regard for cost.
He was amazed, but then stated "but why is that radio so big." I explained that it was capable of transmitting with 5 watts of power, while a cell phone only used power measured in milliwatts. I explained the huge infrastructure required for a cell phone, with tens of thousands of cell sites around the country. I explained that hams could always get through when all other means of communications fail. His final statement was, "but that radio is so huge!" I was very puzzled about his reactions until I realized that he just could not think outside his perception of a cell phone. So this perception carries over for new hams who have owned a cell phone before taking up the hobby.
I bought the Kenwood because it not only has 2m/70cm, but the 1.25 meter band as well, with the capability of working all three with 5 watts. No other handheld has this capability. I also use the Kenwood when I'm backpacking and for that activity you need to be very conscious of the weight of each piece of equipment. I know that I have compromised performance somewhat, but a larger, commercial grade radio (I own two Bendix-Kings) is too heavy and bulky. I have carried the Kings (one at a time) in the backcountry, but finding room for them is tough and they are truly "bricks."
I would like to see ham radios built with a metal case and tighter specifications. The price would increase, but would still be in range of what I would consider affordability. We should still have lower cost radios available for those whose budget does not allow a more expensive model. For those who say ham radio is expensive (you've heard that ham stands for Has Adequate Money), I would ask that other hobbies be compared to ham radio. Think about skiing, bicycle riding (my newest road bicycle cost just under $3,000), water skiing, sailing, antique cars, coin collecting, traveling, or taking a family to amusement parks, and other devices such as audio systems, HD TV's, PDA's, laptops, and all the other goodies people tend to buy without much regard for cost.
KB9NLL
Member
Someone thought my Pro-96 was a phone.:lol:
W2NJS
Member
N8IAA wrote above:
"But, I can't get the Ni-Mh batteries anymore."
If you have a retail battery store in your area, like Batteries Plus, give them a try. Quite often they can get batteries you might not even imagine exist. My store in Rockville Maryland was once able to replace the Nicad pack on a Motorola HT100 with NiMH Varta batteeries for a grand total cost of $35. These were button cells but were the shape of a racetrack rather than round. I think that like so many things it's a question of smoking out the right person to do the job for you. Good luck.
"But, I can't get the Ni-Mh batteries anymore."
If you have a retail battery store in your area, like Batteries Plus, give them a try. Quite often they can get batteries you might not even imagine exist. My store in Rockville Maryland was once able to replace the Nicad pack on a Motorola HT100 with NiMH Varta batteeries for a grand total cost of $35. These were button cells but were the shape of a racetrack rather than round. I think that like so many things it's a question of smoking out the right person to do the job for you. Good luck.
N8IAA
Member
Being that this is a 2 1/2 year old post
Those radios are long gone. Used a battery eliminator for the W32. Same reason I sold my DJ-X10, no more replacement batteries. If I couldn't find the batteries at a hamfest, or online, it was sold. All three radios were big time favorites. Larry
- Status
Similar threads
