I like to listen to aircraft/military comms but i cant stand the static?
- Thread starter mattl3320
- Start date
- Status
ridgescan
Member
Matt-we can help you if you give answers to the following
1.what radio are you using
2.what antenna are you using
3.describe the static or shoot a soundbyte/video<<this one's very helpful
4.describe your listening environment-TVs? modems? electrical adapters? power lines nearby? etc
1.what radio are you using
2.what antenna are you using
3.describe the static or shoot a soundbyte/video<<this one's very helpful
4.describe your listening environment-TVs? modems? electrical adapters? power lines nearby? etc
k9rzz
Member
It's not going to sound like VHF. Ever.
majoco
Stirrer
A proper HF communications receiver will have an "RF Gain" control.
To a certain extent this will reduce the background noise but still allow the voice signals to be received at full volume.
This is not the same as an "attenuator" which reduces the level of everything.
"Squelch" is useless on HF SSB, as there is no carrier to detect
If your receiver has an RF gain and an "S" meter, you can see the effect of the control. With the control at maximum, the S meter sits at zero with no signal and you hear the noise. As you back off the RF gain, the S meter climbs up the scale. If you set the RF gain so that the S meter sits on say S3, all signals and noise below S3 will not be heard.
To a certain extent this will reduce the background noise but still allow the voice signals to be received at full volume.
This is not the same as an "attenuator" which reduces the level of everything.
"Squelch" is useless on HF SSB, as there is no carrier to detect
If your receiver has an RF gain and an "S" meter, you can see the effect of the control. With the control at maximum, the S meter sits at zero with no signal and you hear the noise. As you back off the RF gain, the S meter climbs up the scale. If you set the RF gain so that the S meter sits on say S3, all signals and noise below S3 will not be heard.
You could buy an external DSP speaker system, which will eliminate the noise.
This company makes what are probably the best known products of this type, and has distributors around the world:
bhi ltd - Noise Cancellation Products for all Radio and Voice Communications
This company makes what are probably the best known products of this type, and has distributors around the world:
bhi ltd - Noise Cancellation Products for all Radio and Voice Communications
Ridge is right, we can't help much w/o knowing what radio you have. The cheaper shortwave portables generally have poor audio output and even less control over it. The nicer (albeit more expensive) receivers will have adjust bandwidth filters, audio controls and DSP filtering.
You can always buy these external DSP devices but imho, they're way over-priced.
A shortwave portable radio could use something like this: West Mountain Radio CLR/DSP DSP Audio Filter
...but you'd be better off putting that money toward a higher-end receiver.
You can always buy these external DSP devices but imho, they're way over-priced.
A shortwave portable radio could use something like this: West Mountain Radio CLR/DSP DSP Audio Filter
...but you'd be better off putting that money toward a higher-end receiver.
majoco
Stirrer
There's a software DSP audio filter here....
http://hamsoft.ca/media/Dload/dspfil/DSPFIL111E.exe
... that's free. Works well in my laptop with the audio from my receriver.
http://hamsoft.ca/media/Dload/dspfil/DSPFIL111E.exe
... that's free. Works well in my laptop with the audio from my receriver.
k9rzz
Member
Don't forget, that if you have a good antenna, the signals that you want to hear will come in clearer as well. Still, you can't make a chicken sound like a duck.
ka3jjz
Wiki Admin Emeritus
And to complicate matters even further, the closer we get to summer (as we are only about 4 weeks away here) the noisier the lower bands - below 9 mhz or so - will become. Solar absorption increases and thunderstorm noise becomes more of a problem.
However before we go making too many statements, it should be noted that there are MANY sources of noise - both man made (say, a ballast from a florescent light bulb) or natural (thunderstorms, tornadoes). Noise is one of the nastiest problems on HF, and one that's virtually impossible to completely remove. Even loose wire joints or poor soldering can cause it...
best regards..Mike
However before we go making too many statements, it should be noted that there are MANY sources of noise - both man made (say, a ballast from a florescent light bulb) or natural (thunderstorms, tornadoes). Noise is one of the nastiest problems on HF, and one that's virtually impossible to completely remove. Even loose wire joints or poor soldering can cause it...
best regards..Mike
A lot rides on the radio.
I have been listening to HF for many years (since about 10 or so and now 36). For the first time in this hobby I decided to splurge and buy a good radio. I got the Drake R8 and the noise floor is WOW low. I am not used to this. I have a crappy speaker wire running outside about 50 feet long just wrapped under the eve of my porch and this thing is near silent (1.5 pounds of noise) and I can hear things I never heard before or dreamed of hearing.
It cost me some money but I am really happy. Advice, spend some money if you want a radio of good quality, the cheaper ones just don't compete! I had the RX320 for years and thought it was the bees knees, at the price hard to beat but it has nothing on this Drake.... By a long shot!
I have been listening to HF for many years (since about 10 or so and now 36). For the first time in this hobby I decided to splurge and buy a good radio. I got the Drake R8 and the noise floor is WOW low. I am not used to this. I have a crappy speaker wire running outside about 50 feet long just wrapped under the eve of my porch and this thing is near silent (1.5 pounds of noise) and I can hear things I never heard before or dreamed of hearing.
It cost me some money but I am really happy. Advice, spend some money if you want a radio of good quality, the cheaper ones just don't compete! I had the RX320 for years and thought it was the bees knees, at the price hard to beat but it has nothing on this Drake.... By a long shot!
Corbintechboy probably has the best answer.
Invest in a good communications grade receiver and a better antenna set up.
Build a antenna for the frequency you desire to receive.
For each BAND of frequencies - you will need a different antenna.
Technically AIRCRAFT band is not a part of the HF - it is VHF!
108 - 137 mhz
Airband - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Invest in a good communications grade receiver and a better antenna set up.
Build a antenna for the frequency you desire to receive.
For each BAND of frequencies - you will need a different antenna.
Technically AIRCRAFT band is not a part of the HF - it is VHF!
108 - 137 mhz
Airband - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Token
Member
So, you don't think that maybe since we are in the HF/MW/LW forum the OP might not be talking about any one of the couple dozen or more designated "Aeronautical Mobile" segments that are most definately in HF? http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf
He specifically said he likes "to listen aircraft and other stations on hf", what makes you think he means the Aero VHF band?
T!
Uh oh, somebody muddied the water around here. Please understand that the noise figure given in receiver specs refers to internally generated white noise, random electron noise generated by the active circuit components, transistors and chips. This occurs mostly in the front end and is amplified along with signal in the succeeding stages. It stands to reason the high end receivers have the lowest noise figures.
For the confused: The OP is complaining of atmospheric noise rightfully called static which is almost entirely absent on VHF, that's one of the reasons why the military and civilian comms are VHF AM. Any "static" is as above, no getting past a poor receiver here. As a side note, airline corporate channels are FM but for an entirely different reason not germane to the discussion.
"Technically AIRCRAFT band is not a part of the HF - it is VHF!"
HUH? There are SEVERAL HF aircraft bands as there are several HF marine bands. FYI, VHF is only used for short range comms being line of sight and not subject to ionospheric propagation taken advantage of in HF operation.
"He specifically said he likes "to listen aircraft and other stations on hf", what makes you think he means the Aero VHF band?"
I see you're paying attention. That rather makes any serious discussion of VHF a moot point now doesn't it?
For the confused: The OP is complaining of atmospheric noise rightfully called static which is almost entirely absent on VHF, that's one of the reasons why the military and civilian comms are VHF AM. Any "static" is as above, no getting past a poor receiver here. As a side note, airline corporate channels are FM but for an entirely different reason not germane to the discussion.
"Technically AIRCRAFT band is not a part of the HF - it is VHF!"
HUH? There are SEVERAL HF aircraft bands as there are several HF marine bands. FYI, VHF is only used for short range comms being line of sight and not subject to ionospheric propagation taken advantage of in HF operation.
"He specifically said he likes "to listen aircraft and other stations on hf", what makes you think he means the Aero VHF band?"
I see you're paying attention. That rather makes any serious discussion of VHF a moot point now doesn't it?
majoco
Stirrer
Nice chart, Token.
Try this for the Aero HF Chart.....
http://sites.google.com/site/f5kin63/HFAERO.jpg
You may need a magnifying glass though.......
Try this for the Aero HF Chart.....
http://sites.google.com/site/f5kin63/HFAERO.jpg
You may need a magnifying glass though.......
pathalogical
Member
The updated version of that chart is here, THE AERO CD I purchased his CD and it is very well done and the hi res version is huge, no magnifying glass necessary !
Well - I threw away most of my links to reception- but I will try to help you off the top of my head.
Most effective communications is line of sight. Line of sight is very limited.
If you build two towers about 48 miles apart , each tower being 1000' tall.
If you climb one of those towers to the top - you would be able to see the light blinking on the top of the other tower.
Height equals gain.
The higher up you get the transmit antenna and the higher up you get the receive antenna - the further you will be able to receive a signal 100% of the time.
When you get your transmit / receive antenna up higher your horizon increases.
At some point - say 37,000 miles - one antenna can effectively communicate to one whole side of a planet and regardless of how much higher you get the antenna - it will go no further.
That is the reason why Moon Bounce works.
If both stations can see the moon - you can effectively transmit and receive as much as 12,000 miles.
Anything other then that - your reception will depend on the signal being able to hop - such terms as E Hop generally indicate that it bounced off the E Layer of the atmosphere and it will have a range of 450 - 3000 miles. Multiple hops increases your ability to receive and transmit further.
So basically if you want to receive something - the first thing that cannot be compromised is the antenna location of the receive antenna. Your antenna needs to be a certain size and shape and aimed in a certain direction with a certain amount of gain and it needs to be as far away from electrical noise as possible.
This might also include using some type of low noise mast head amplifier and a good receiver with special roofing filters and notch filters.
The bottom line is - why bother.
There isn't anything of interest on those bands anyways.
The plane goes up / the plane goes down.
The pilot gets it up into the sky and puts the plane on auto pilot and the ground control tracks the plane and gives their altitude and course headings for their destination.
It isn't like as if you are going to hear steamy sex conversations or drug deals, like on a telephone or cell phone..
By the time you get your system all built and operational - you would probably just get bored of it and have to take it down anyways...
Non-line-of-sight propagation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Read this article - you might enjoy it.
TV and FM DX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just for the record - I DX television from my location and the furthest I ever received a analog television signal was Nebraska and Boston New York from Punxsutawney Pennsylvania and Florida to the south.
500 - 1500 miles on a good day....
I also received WDTV - West Virginia 120 miles from my location.
For you - that would be like listening to a kid on a 500 mw walkie talkie from one hundred miles away..
Even the owner of the station called me up and said he couldn't receive his own signal from 20 miles away at his home QTH.
Most effective communications is line of sight. Line of sight is very limited.
If you build two towers about 48 miles apart , each tower being 1000' tall.
If you climb one of those towers to the top - you would be able to see the light blinking on the top of the other tower.
Height equals gain.
The higher up you get the transmit antenna and the higher up you get the receive antenna - the further you will be able to receive a signal 100% of the time.
When you get your transmit / receive antenna up higher your horizon increases.
At some point - say 37,000 miles - one antenna can effectively communicate to one whole side of a planet and regardless of how much higher you get the antenna - it will go no further.
That is the reason why Moon Bounce works.
If both stations can see the moon - you can effectively transmit and receive as much as 12,000 miles.
Anything other then that - your reception will depend on the signal being able to hop - such terms as E Hop generally indicate that it bounced off the E Layer of the atmosphere and it will have a range of 450 - 3000 miles. Multiple hops increases your ability to receive and transmit further.
So basically if you want to receive something - the first thing that cannot be compromised is the antenna location of the receive antenna. Your antenna needs to be a certain size and shape and aimed in a certain direction with a certain amount of gain and it needs to be as far away from electrical noise as possible.
This might also include using some type of low noise mast head amplifier and a good receiver with special roofing filters and notch filters.
The bottom line is - why bother.
There isn't anything of interest on those bands anyways.
The plane goes up / the plane goes down.
The pilot gets it up into the sky and puts the plane on auto pilot and the ground control tracks the plane and gives their altitude and course headings for their destination.
It isn't like as if you are going to hear steamy sex conversations or drug deals, like on a telephone or cell phone..
By the time you get your system all built and operational - you would probably just get bored of it and have to take it down anyways...
Non-line-of-sight propagation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Read this article - you might enjoy it.
TV and FM DX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just for the record - I DX television from my location and the furthest I ever received a analog television signal was Nebraska and Boston New York from Punxsutawney Pennsylvania and Florida to the south.
500 - 1500 miles on a good day....
I also received WDTV - West Virginia 120 miles from my location.
For you - that would be like listening to a kid on a 500 mw walkie talkie from one hundred miles away..
Even the owner of the station called me up and said he couldn't receive his own signal from 20 miles away at his home QTH.
ka3jjz
Wiki Admin Emeritus
Let's try to stay on topic, folks. The OT specifically said 'aircraft and other stations on hf' - he wasn't talking about the 108-136 mhz area, nor TV, nor FM. With that...
Oh HF, while I agree that a better radio and/or antenna will limit some - but not all - forms of noise, there are some noise sources you simply can't avoid easily - thunderstoms being one of them. They will be a problem here in the northern hemisphere as we get closer to summer. There have been whole treatises written on the subject of noise on HF - and it's something, to a certain extent, you will need to live with. Some sources simply can't be knocked off with a filter or a better antenna.
best regards..Mike
Oh HF, while I agree that a better radio and/or antenna will limit some - but not all - forms of noise, there are some noise sources you simply can't avoid easily - thunderstoms being one of them. They will be a problem here in the northern hemisphere as we get closer to summer. There have been whole treatises written on the subject of noise on HF - and it's something, to a certain extent, you will need to live with. Some sources simply can't be knocked off with a filter or a better antenna.
best regards..Mike
ridgescan
Member
Where's the OP??
majoco
Stirrer
This is why all (most?) over-water aircraft are fitted with Selcal - so that the pilot gets woken up when his area station calls him. Unfortunately it's something you'll have to put up with - just back off the RF gain until it becomes less objectionable.:roll:
k9rzz
Member
Don't forget that thunderstorm static crashes are much less frequent in the winter. Perhaps just take a break and pick it up again in the fall.
- Status
Similar threads
