Talk:Single-sideband modulation

message: In all of my readings on SSB, I've never come across any mention of using envelope detection to decode SSB, only product demodulation.  I was under the impression that the method of demodulation given in this article would not result in the recovery of the original message since still only one sideband is present.  Ckape
Unless the article has changed between the time of your comment and now, I think you mis-read it - the article says that envelope detection cannot be used to demodulate SSB, only AM. However, it is possible to demodulate SSB with an envelope detector if you inject a suitable carrier at the receiver. For example, if you were to be receiving an SSB signal with peak signal levels of -120 dBm, and you were to inject a -120 dBm unmodulated carrier at the nominal carrier frequency of the signal into your receiver, then an envelope detector could receive the signal. N0YKG 21:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I deleted the text that said that DSL uses SSB, because I don't know of any type of DSL that does. If someone can give a specific type, it should be listed with more detail. I also observe that the other reference is to ATSC, which in its words uses 8VSB. Because the roll-off factor is so small, this is almost SSB; but because there is content down to DC, it isn't truly SSB. Maybe someone with more expertise can improve it or delete this section as misleading. Many thanks.
Serrano24 (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Suppressed carrier SSB

message: Surely it is possible to transmit SSB in a form that can be recieved on AM recievers by transmitting with a carrier reduced by 3dB or with a variant of the vestigal sideband system used in television.
How come broadcasting stations dont use such a system to alleviate frequency band overcrowding ?
:There would be no commercial benefit for doing that.  Switching to SSB would require replacing all current broadcast receivers.  That won't happen without some advantage beyond bandwidth, and SSB has nothing to offer.  Digital radio is another alternative, which is far superior to both SSB, AM, and FM, and may eventually take over.  Even so, digital radio will have a long hard struggle before it becomes mainstream. --ssd 19:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the point is that it wouldnt require replacing all current broadcast receivers because as the carrier would only be reduced by 3dB ? 213.40.110.233 (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually a very lame idea, but this talk page is to discuss article contents, not amateur inventions. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Commercial AM stations actually use each sideband to create stereo signals. The USB gets one channel and the LSB gets the other. On a standard AM receiver, this is summed back to mono, but on a stereo AM receiver, this ends up as a stereo signal. 75.217.204.127 (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Only small portion of the worlds AM stations (mostly in North America) broadcast in Stereo and the majority of these use a phase quadrature rather than Kahn Independent sideband system. 213.40.114.230 (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

text: SSB+vestigial carrier produces distortion in the recovered signal. algocu (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

text:  I believe all this talk about CSSB ought to be removed to its own page and wholly rewritten, because it's a fundamentally different methodology from conventional SSB, and nonlinear at that. Also, the long-winded introduction pertaining to its tech has rather obviously been copied here verbatim from researh reports; it might even be against copyright, and it certainly doesn't follow encyclopedic style. Decoy (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Compatible SSB

message: The article could do with more information on vestigal sideband. 213.40.114.230 (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Vestigal Sideband

message: Why is there a separate page for Single-sideband suppressed-carrier transmission when "single-sideband" almost always refers to that, and is the main modulation technique discussed here? 72.75.98.88 (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It now seems to have been changed to a redirect, which is fine. David Spector (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suppressed Carrier 

message: I think the author of this new section has good intent, but...
It's a false claim that "This approach avoids the use of the complex representation of baseband signals ...", because the proof offered at http://i.imgur.com/xj0moI9.png relies on arguing that:
:\mathcal{F}^{-1}\{M(f)u(f)\} = \frac{1}{2} [m(t) + j\cdot \hat m(t)],
which is a complex baseband representation.  By moving the proof to the RF domain, it simply becomes much more difficult and is not customary.  This section is a front for the user's blog, which makes another false implication that it contains fewer "links" than Wikipedia's treatment here.  And finally, the links it provides include several seconds of promotional material for something called adf.ly.
--Bob K (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate derivation from the frequency domain 

message: In the section "History", added "and channel status signalling at or in the vicinity of 3,825 Hz." Akld guy (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I took it out.  Bring us a source that explains what it means and maybe we can put it back.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Means this. When either of the parties hangs up a call or a data transfer is terminated, there needs to be a way to signal to the opposite end that the call is terminated. The presence or absence of the 3.825 KHz signal does that without the need to introduce inband (300Hz-3.4KHz) signals that would be apparent (and LOUD) to the non-hungup party. I thought that those who had already contributed to the page would see instantly what I meant. Perhaps you don't have any actual experience with FDM (aka broadband) systems. I'll try to find a source, but frankly I'm not going to waste a lot of time. If there aren't people here who don't know that OBS (Out of Band Signalling) was used, I'm not going to fight them. My experience consists of quite a few years in the telecoms field, but my terminology may not be appropriate to North American experts. It's what we used in my country, which of course met international standards. I used "at or in the vicinity of 3,825" because while pretty sure that was the frequency, it's been several decades and my recollection may be wrong. Akld guy (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Channel status signals 

message: "in order to support the fidelity required and desired for relative high fidelity, full range clean and articulate vocal audio."
I'm pretty sure the person doing the talking is the one responsible for the audio being articulate or not, not the hardware.
Perhaps a different word would better articulate the thought that was intended to be conveyed.
2601:5CE:4101:8553:D0C1:F6:D0C0:3F4C (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articulate article? 

message: An editor claims that "The carrier recovery doesn't solve the frequency shift. It gives better S/N ratio on the detector output."  To my experience, I don't know why this would be the case.  It's also not clear what a "BFO oscillator shift" is, or where this "agreement" comes from; 1.7kHz from where to where?  In any event, it requires a citation to support the claim. algocu (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demodulation