Learn something new all the time

[DaveNF2G]

Huh? If the receiver is adjusted properly, a narrowband signal will be usable over greater distances than a wideband signal. The SNR is higher. Some of the earlier "narrowbanding" involved simply reducing the deviation of existing wideband transmitters without corresponding adjustments to the receivers. This made signals sound weaker and allowed more noise into the passband. When properly designed narrowband equipment was deployed, coverage improved in most cases.

 

[krokus]

Huh? If the receiver is adjusted properly, a narrowband signal will be usable over greater distances than a wideband signal. The SNR is higher. Some of the earlier "narrowbanding" involved simply reducing the deviation of existing wideband transmitters without corresponding adjustments to the receivers. This made signals sound weaker and allowed more noise into the passband. When properly designed narrowband equipment was deployed, coverage improved in most cases.

I agree that logic would lead to thinking "Same power over a smaller spread should give a bit more range." That is a lot of what makes SSB & CW more effective. But the reality was, with gear made for NBFM, the useful range decreased, when the NB switch was flipped.

I don't have the time, right now, to do the search of the posts, to find where the BW versus SNR was discussed, and how it was altered.

Sent using Tapatalk

 

[n0iop]

There is little that is changing on the ground.

The "public correspondence" duplex pairs have been sitting dormant for 20 years since the public coast stations shut down with the advent of cellular. The main change is that these are being split apart, in most cases, into two simplex channels, and assigned as needed.

Is there any marine gear on the market today that has narrowband channels? Are there any coast stations, either proposed or in operation, that use them?