FM bandwidth adjust ??

  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 3 years ago
  • Answered
What gives ? i cannot seem to adjust the bandwidth in Any way in FM mode ? am i doing something stupid ?
Photo of Rob Blackie

Rob Blackie

  • 122 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
  • buyers remorse..

Posted 3 years ago

  • 1
Photo of km9r.mike

km9r.mike

  • 425 Posts
  • 62 Reply Likes
TX or receive  ?

Also an indirect way to ensure you correct offsets is to expand the panadapter scale so it covers the offset freq and enable tx in waterfall. I agree a digital confirmation of input freq while txmitting would be better.
(Edited)
Photo of Rob Blackie

Rob Blackie

  • 122 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
both RX and TX ,, its silly..and  for me a BIG let down on this radio
Photo of km9r.mike

km9r.mike

  • 425 Posts
  • 62 Reply Likes
I just opened up my 2m panadapter and saw for receive in FM or NFM the receive bandwidth is fixed (perhaps by convention ?) however for DFM receive bandwidth is both variable and has presets. I tried to adjust TX bandwidth in FM and that worked fine. I assume NFM and DFM will do the same.
Photo of Rob Blackie

Rob Blackie

  • 122 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes

THATS CRAZY, WHY ONLY DFM ( DIGITAL )????

CMON FLEX SORT THAT OUT !


I'm in caps because I'm ANGRY !
(Edited)
Photo of Rob Blackie

Rob Blackie

  • 122 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
i assume getting FM to work peoperly has not been a priority as americans dont use it as much as us over the pond..very dissapointing ..
Photo of Rob Blackie

Rob Blackie

  • 122 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes

I EXPECT to have the SAME control  as I do in the other modes !!!

so I can adjust the strong and nearby signals to prevent splatter clipping  etc

and to narrow the bandwidth to match exactly the matching transmission.. ( same as we can in ALL other modes)

its a basic necessity, as I said, FM has been overlooked due to the fact the USA don't use it much.

I think we ALL know im talking about RX,,as I said.. overlooked..

(Edited)
Photo of Ken - NM9P

Ken - NM9P, Elmer

  • 4166 Posts
  • 1328 Reply Likes
FM transmit bandwidth is a function of the deviation and audio input, but not as simply as setting a filter in SSB. The FM mode has a standard deviation of 5 KHz and the total bandwidth is set by that. The FMN has a deviation of 2.5 KHz and its bandwidth is set by that.

You can,however, adjust your TX EQ and audio bandwidth and Shape your audio profile. Also, Turn PROC OFF in FM modes.

The receive bandwidth is set for the optimum bandwidth for a properly adjusted FM signal for each of FM and FMN.
Photo of Rob Blackie

Rob Blackie

  • 122 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
not good enough.
Photo of Ken - NM9P

Ken - NM9P, Elmer

  • 4166 Posts
  • 1328 Reply Likes
OK, so if I understand, you would like to be able to narrow the RX filter for time when you may be trying to copy a weak FM signal that is under-deviated, in order to increase the signal to noise ratio?  I can see that that could be handy on occasion.  It could be problematic for those who don't understand the relationship between audio bandwidth and deviation settings and ultimate RF bandwidth of an FM signal.  So perhaps there needs to be a "Standard Normal" FM filter bandwidth setting with the option to vary it more or less in special situations....

As far as TX goes, I think there are enough TX Audio controls to do what is necessary for voice in either FM or FMN (the two standards for FM in most of the Amateur Community)  you can control ultimate audio bandwidth and equalization for each mode independently. 
Photo of Rob Blackie

Rob Blackie

  • 122 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes

EXACTLY !  you get what im saying, why was not included like it is in EVERY other mode ??

 I use this feature  constantly with my $10 RTL USB dongle and Free HDSDR software.. to me .. its an absolute must !

as far as TX goes, im not fussed about that.

regards Rob

(Edited)
Photo of km9r.mike

km9r.mike

  • 425 Posts
  • 62 Reply Likes
I am confused. Above you emphatically stated both receive and xmit and you were so angry . Now you are saying only receive and tx is not a concern. You already have what you want and that is achieved by simply selecting DFM mode. Like I pointed out earlier there are both presets and the ability to manually vary receive filter width. Seems to me you get angry very easy.
Photo of Rob Blackie

Rob Blackie

  • 122 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes

its not confusing at all, i want the same flexibility on NFM and FM as i do in the other modes.

your opinion of what gets me angry or not means nothing to me.

(Edited)
Photo of km9r.mike

km9r.mike

  • 425 Posts
  • 62 Reply Likes
You have it in DFM. Simply select the mode. Others can not do that for you. I have already done this myself and it works great on the local fm repeaters. I am certain it will work great in fm simplex if that is what you are looking to do.
(Edited)
Photo of Rob Blackie

Rob Blackie

  • 122 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
nope, DFM is Not the same.
Photo of km9r.mike

km9r.mike

  • 425 Posts
  • 62 Reply Likes
Stay calm and carry on. Perhaps good things will come to those who wait. In the mean time you indeed have this variable receive capability in DFM.
Photo of Rob Blackie

Rob Blackie

  • 122 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes

very poor squelch threshold in DFM, PLUS it sound crap on an analogue transmission PLUS, why should I keep having to switch modes to TX ? plus WHY is it not included as standard ??

"those who wait" why do I feel like am a Beta tester on a 2K radio ?? its ridiculous.. if I had known that, there is NO WAY I would have bought a Flex !

# Buyers Remorse ..

(Edited)
Photo of km9r.mike

km9r.mike

  • 425 Posts
  • 62 Reply Likes
Like I said , sounds great on the local fm repeaters here. So we agree to disagree. To be honest, I have not looked for a difference in squelch functionality between FM, NFM or DFM but I suspect it works great in all three. Yes the horror, I suspect you would have to change modes prior to txmiting for now, but let me simply remind you according to your own words txmitting was NOT a concern.
(Edited)
Photo of Bill -VA3WTB

Bill -VA3WTB

  • 3611 Posts
  • 865 Reply Likes
Ok, I take it you have not heard from Flex them selves, Just call them and ask them, easy,,don't just stay here and complain, talk to them, But I think you will hear from Tim soon on this.
Photo of Rob Blackie

Rob Blackie

  • 122 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes

Mike ..it sounds TERRIBLE on an FM transmission ! , thin reedy, Awful, and so it should, its not designed for  analogue FM mode, you seem hell bent on arguing with me on this forum, don't bother, you wont phase me, im  better than that. just saving you some time and effort.


and Bill, no, apart from the comment above from Steve - N5AC, VP Engineering , which TBH does not address my complaint. ( query)

whats wrong with complaining on here ???

Rob

(Edited)
Photo of Ken - NM9P

Ken - NM9P, Elmer

  • 4166 Posts
  • 1328 Reply Likes
DFM is not the same as FM or FMN.  The way I understand it, there is not the same pre-emphasis/de-emphasis in the modulation/demodulation chain as in standard FM or FMN modes.  It was created to allow digital modes that do not require the same audio treatment as standard voice FM modes. 

Also, if a station is using FM or FMN and wishes to narrow the RX filters just a bit to bring up a weak FM station, changing to DFM mode would require a completely different Mic profile to be created, and might mess with repeater offsets and CTCSS settings...rather inconvenient in the middle of a QSO. 

So while I am not particularly aggrieved about it myself (as Rob says, many of us in the US don't do HF FM a lot) I understand his concerns and would hope that FRS will add the ability to vary FM and FMN receiver filter bandwidth, as well as make some improvements in the FM squelch algorithm.  (it needs some threshold and hysteresis adjustments).

The 6000 is a superb SSB, CW, AM, RTTY, Digital mode rig.  It would be consistent to become the best FM rig around, also.  I am confident that they will eventually get there.  I also am aware that there are many other issues on the "list" that are probably rating higher on the urgency scale, due simply to the numbers of users affected by the issues.

But we all judge the value of our rigs by our own particular operating habits..... I am content to wait for FM fixes.....But if SSB sounded crappy....I might well be complaining like Rob!  (grin)  So let's all relax......

Cheers

Ken - NM9P
Photo of Rob Blackie

Rob Blackie

  • 122 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes

I appreciate your understanding Ken

Regards Rob

ps

Yes, the Flex 6000 IS a great radio, I just  find it surprising that it lacks so many Basic features found on regular radios.. TX Duplex, frequency readout, alpha tagging,   a proper auto 1750 tone( haven't had to use a tone "burst" since my FT-767GX !

FM bandwidth adjust,  NO M.A.R.S. capability in the £2100 6300 ! ..

these are just a few things I have found in the 1 week I have owned the flax that disappoint me, I thought I was buying a TOTALY FLEXable radio.. it seems not..

to those who think I am complaining ,,I AM !,, but that.. is how we get things fixed !


(Edited)
Photo of Steve - N5AC

Steve - N5AC, VP Engineering / CTO

  • 1049 Posts
  • 1057 Reply Likes
Official Response
What, exactly, do you expect to happen to the modulation when you change the bandwidth?  FM modulation bandwidth is set by the deviation and the maximum audio frequency allowed.  If we reduce the bandwidth below this, your not gonna like the results.  If you want lower bandwidth select lower deviation (FM -> NFM) or reduce your audio bandwidth with the EQ.  DFM is not fixed as we do not know what audio input will be supplied and we have an expectation that more advanced folks that understand the bandwidth requirements will be touching the dials.  The inability to change it is to prevent folks from doing things that will have an adverse effect on output.
Photo of Roy Laufer

Roy Laufer

  • 439 Posts
  • 45 Reply Likes
What I hope to find under my "Christmas Tree" one of these years from FRS is a "tweak" of the FM mode that has an optional high cut filter for the specific "inaudible" PL tone for a given Repeater!

I realize that you can accomplish something close by bottoming out the 63Hz and 125Hz EQ receive settings, but it ain't quite the same.

It's time that those "sub-audible" tones went back to being truly sub-audible.

Good luck in the contest!
Roy AC2GS