![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:08:49 GMT, B A R R Y
wrote: On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 18:03:31 +0100, wrote: With FM the signal remains much clearer until the point where it suddenly becomes unreadable when itl becomes weak. With AM is that readability gradually reduces as the signal gets weaker. If you open the squelch you can often still read AM when FM would be unreadable. That's the way I always understood it. AM transmissions can be pulled out of background noise. FM is more difficult, as it cuts out before it's unreadable. I would imagine digital would be the worst. Digital is either decodable and there or nothing and silence. This is all based on my experiences with aircraft AM radios, FM business radios, broadcast and satellite TV, and radio, so it might be all wrong. G You're spot on with your comments. My experience is amateur radio with AM/FM & SSB plus business radios, broadcast radio & TV FM/AM from longwave to SHF. Given the choice SSB gives best low signal readability but not very suitable for normal aviation. The problem with comparisons is a 10watt AM transmitter puts out 2x sidebands of 2.5watts (max). All of the intelligence is available in one 2.5watt sideband, the rest is to make the signal easier to decode. The equivalent 10watt FM transmittter uses the full 10 watts but that's getting too technical:-) At the end of the day if AM equipment is working properly there's not a problem and there's no reason to change every transmitter in the world. Probably the main problem is aircraft noise and poor hearing along with microphone technique and peoples accents! I've flown mamy aircraft in a number of countries and can't say there's a problem with AM. More likely to have a problem with a controller rattling out an instruction too fast. I doubt I've had more than a handful of transmissions, in 15 years, I'd give worse than readability 4. Almost always 5. Normal communication quality is up to 4KHz audio response. As you get older you loose the high frequencies anyway so forget hi-fi! My hearing is only good to around 6KHz but when I was younger was around 16KHz. You only require 3KHz audio bandwidth and if pushed for maximum readability and least bandwidth 2KHz but it sounds very harsh though very readable. The worst transmissions in the UK are the military who sometimes sound like they're using throat mikes. Myself and another aircraft were working one military controller who was almost impossible to understand. I could just make him out but the commercial aircraft gave up. I'd say readability 2. David |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder | John Doe | Piloting | 145 | March 31st 06 06:58 PM |
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? | Rick Umali | Piloting | 29 | February 15th 06 04:40 AM |
terminology questions: turtledeck? cantilever wing? | Ric | Home Built | 2 | September 13th 05 09:39 PM |
I Hate Radios | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 9 | June 6th 05 05:39 PM |
AirCraft Radio Communications | [email protected] | Rotorcraft | 0 | November 13th 03 12:48 AM |