Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2017 16:33:15 GMT
There's a great review of the EDM FM transmitter over at Part15.us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2017 17:38:17 GMT
The EDM Transmitter Review
Yes indeed, and I also placed a News Release about Tim's Review in our ALPB News Column.
As far as I can tell Tim's Review answers every possible question we might have about the EDM, and for me puts to rest confusing comments I've read elsewhere that caused uncertainty. For example, I've read high praise for the transmitter by someone but then ran across another person's claim that the EDM FM Transmitter has flaws (I don't remember exactly what those were said to be).
Recently I've been disappointed at the disappearance of the Ramsey FM30B Transmitter, of which I'd hoped to obtain a second one, and balk at transmitters that have no adjustable power output settings, so now there's the EDM which, based on Tim's Report, I'd be inclined to purchase.
We are very lucky to have Tim's FM Transmitter Reviews because the FCC's Rule leaves us in a bad position...
Most of us cannot afford a needed FIM (Field Intensity Meter) and Tim's reviews have informed us that claimed manufacturers "certifications" are unreliable.
Therefore Tim's reviews give us the knowledge we need to know about most of the available transmitters.
|
|
|
Post by Druid Hills Radio on Jan 13, 2017 18:00:44 GMT
The only info that was/is missing is 50 or 75 us pre emphasis or none?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2017 18:19:32 GMT
Older versions of this transmitter did indeed have issues (in spite of widespread praise for it). It appears that they have fixed these.
In the hands of someone who knows what they're doing, this would be a good choice.
|
|
|
Post by mark on Jan 15, 2017 18:59:45 GMT
@ Artisan(Davidc)...Based on Tim's review and looking this(EDM)it seems to be of equal quality as the Decade MS100 just without the certification but capable of being adjusted to BETS-1 level. And also more compact.
In your opinion, could we use this here? And, we have always speculated on the cost of getting a TAC or certification for BETS-1 for an uncertified transmitter but maybe it's not that bad?(wishful thinking) It would be not to hard to have a fixed antenna on this. Since you seem to have used this at some time and others maybe you can give me some insight on this?
Thanks!
Mark
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2017 6:18:43 GMT
I wouldn't use it. The Decade was much higher quality in both build and sound, and I can't see that much improvement over the one I had.
And unless you have a FIM, how are you going to set the right power level?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2017 13:26:02 GMT
Tough Titties
DavidC said: "And unless you have a FIM, how are you going to set the right power level?"
Not our problem.
It is the FCC's problem.
We tend to forget who we are.
We are the General Public.
We own the airwaves.
The electromagnetic spectrum is the same as a public park. It is space we own.
The FCC is our Trustee and manages the public airwaves on our behalf.
There are low power territories going entirely unused and we wish to use them, therefore it's up to the FCC to either fit that into their work day and come up with a plan for making the unused space available to us, or they need to back off and allow us to move in as squatters.
In the case of AM band usage, the FCC showed they can be reasonable by giving a formula anyone can figure out... 100 milliWatts.... 3-meters.... pencil.... scrap of paper.... yard-stick....
By contrast the FM rule 15.239 is slip-shod law... poor regulation... because it's so absurd to require a $22,000 meter that it's actually stupid.
Get real!
|
|
|
Post by mark on Jan 16, 2017 17:37:44 GMT
Yes Carl, as you say the airwaves are ours, the public's, and if AM and FM goes digital they won't be any more! It will all be owned by a corporation...the whole system. No more frequencies, unused space, transmitters to get on there....your Procaster, Ramsey, Decade, EDM, Rangmaster, Ccrane, etc. will be useless! Digital won't work the same as we have now....we have to fight to not let this happen for our hobby to exist.
@ Davidc...my curiosity has got the best of me so I am going to contact IC and see if I can find out what's the deal with getting a certification for a transmitter, the TAC. I think I read somewhere in the document that any engineer with the credentials and equipment can perform this like Tim for example, but I will find out what the cost would be so there's no more speculation. When and if I can find out I will post the info.
Mark
|
|
|
Post by mark on Jan 16, 2017 19:30:59 GMT
I have contacted Industry Canada, which has now changed it's name by the way, about getting a transmitter TAC for BETS-1 use...the procedure and cost and if anyone with the qualifications and test equipment can do the tests and also asked about a transmitter certified under RSS-210 also being used for BETS-1,like the Broadcastvision and the Procaster for example. I will post when I get an answer on here and part15.us. When I email the question goes to the correct person and then I can contact that certain person if I have any other questions. Simply calling will never get you to the right place. I may ask Michael at Decade about this too as he can do the tests.
So we will have the actual facts and not just assume things.
Mark
|
|
|
Post by thelegacy on Jan 17, 2017 18:42:19 GMT
Carl I love the stance you've been taking the last few days. I only hope for others the light bulb will turn on in their brain too.
I've said this as well that we as the public should have a say so in the FCC's position on Hobby Broadcasting. Obviously the general public loves it because you look around and their forums that log Pirate Radio stations are full of folks that love to listen and almost pull the hair out of their heads to try and find one. So if Hobby Broadcasting is so evil why then do people want to try and tune in a hobby station? It says a lot for what is offered on the airwaves Today.
I'm gonna see if we actually get others to actually want to do anything but I for one was tired of beating the drum and its nice to see someone other than me doing it. One point of advice is don't talk about this on part15(dot)us as they have a zero tolerance for anything not 15:209, 15:219 or 15:239 (that one being the biggest one). I hate to see anyone get the axe for talking about forbidden subjects over there.
Since I've asked my NRR members to chill over there I think it may go back to what they want over at part15(dot)us. As for the ALPB I understand they don't try and play Radio police so at least we have FREE speech here.
|
|
|
Post by mighty1650 on Jan 17, 2017 18:50:32 GMT
It is not the FCC's problem, it is yours. The rules obviously and quite blatantly make it clear that it is up to the operator to insure compliance.
The rules are made in such a way that only a competent user can make full use of it. $22,000 isn't as much as you think in the broadcast world.
|
|
|
Post by mark on Jan 25, 2017 20:18:06 GMT
I have contacted Industry Canada, which has now changed it's name by the way, about getting a transmitter TAC for BETS-1 use...the procedure and cost and if anyone with the qualifications and test equipment can do the tests and also asked about a transmitter certified under RSS-210 also being used for BETS-1,like the Broadcastvision and the Procaster for example. I will post when I get an answer on here and part15.us. When I email the question goes to the correct person and then I can contact that certain person if I have any other questions. Simply calling will never get you to the right place. I may ask Michael at Decade about this too as he can do the tests. So we will have the actual facts and not just assume things. Mark Here it is!....the facts! Spoke to an agent at Industry Canada, Which is now called Innovation Science and Economic Development(ISED). About broadcasting and not broadcasting....RSS-210 is meant for personal use only and not to be heard by anyone but yourself. If you are heard by others other than yourself intentionally or not you are considered broadcasting and outside the scope of RSS-210 which puts you in the BETS-1 category. If we in Canada use a Broadcastvision TX for example certified under RSS-210 and you get a visit they will take measurements and ask to see the transmitter. If the transmitter is RSS-210 certified but can be heard by others outside your personal space even though you are not over BETS-1 field strength they can still say you need a BETS-1 certification which is your "license". You cannot operate a RSS-210 certified transmitter OUTSIDE or INSIDE for others off your property to hear. I gave the agent the numbers on the back of the Decade and he verified that the certification numbers are BETS and not RSS-210 as BETS certification also can be used for your own use also. Now for the info. we've always wanted to know....THE COST of certification. The ISED agent gave me a list of all the certification labs worldwide and I called the one in Oakville Ontario and spoke with Dan Nita. The cost to have a transmitter certified operating in the FM and AM bands is $3000 and this includes everything and receiving the certification label and number. The same cost for BETS and RSS-210 and RSS-123. Now here's the interesting part......the cost is the same for FCC part 15 and BETS-1 and RSS-210 The cost is also the same whether you are a private person or a company...no difference! I can submit a transmitter for certification or a company can submit a sample for certification. The only way you wouldn't get the certification is if the transmitter can't be adjusted to meet the regs. like the Chinese ones for example. He also said that ANY transmitter cannot be sold or shipped here and in the US legally unless it's certified making the EDM for example not legal to even ship here let alone get it certified. All transmitters made by US or Canadian companies have to be certified either Part 15 or RSS-210 and BETS is optional. Now, for a company $3000 is not much so why wouldn't any transmitter manufacturer here or overseas just get the product certified as it's a one time cost? What we've heard about the cost being so much for a company to get certification is not true. EDM could easily get a certification and for BETS. and sell them legit here. As for the AM Procaster, Why since the cost is the same, don't they get the BETS certification and not the RSS-210? That's what makes it OK to have the public hear you. Since the Decade is BETS-1 certified it can be put anywhere inside or out and as long as you are not causing interference to something else. As for the EDM being a kit therefore making it legal to sell here and in the US, in Canada I still have to spend $3000 to be able to legally use it. The test facility also gives you the cert. label and number and not ISED as thought....they just see the results of the testing and put it in their data base. So 2 transmitters can be used as received here in Canada for "broadcasting" Decade and Procaster which because of the outdoor install as part of the Procaster certification there's a grey area and if you are told you are broadcasting you have to spend $3000 for the BETS certification, and that is field strength not 100mW into final and 10 ft antenna. Mark
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2017 21:32:54 GMT
The key for RSS210 is perceived intent, I would think. If you've got a ProCaster up on a pole on your roof on a small lot, it would be difficult to convince an inspector that you were using it to transmit just to yourself. If, however, it's inside, it would be difficult to judge your intent.
The reason that the ProCaster isn't BETS-1 certified is that for AM, the rule is field strength only (250uv/m at 30 meters). Far less than the field strength produced by an RSS210 certified ProCaster (which is operating by what are essentially Part1.219 rules). They'd never sell any. Right now, it's kind of nudge nudge wink wink when using the ProCaster - it's only certified RSS210, but even their website lists using it as a radio station as a potential application.
RSS210 for FM is essentially Part15.239 - much less range than BETS-1. I'm intentionally using an RSS210 FM transmitter right now because I DO want to limit the signal. It would be difficult to argue that I'm broadcasting over the air - if I wanted to do that, I'd get a BETS-1 device. My primary focus right now is Internet streaming, and I use the RSS210 transmitter to monitor my signal/stream with a radio.
Great work Mark. Thanks for the initiative to do this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2017 23:24:56 GMT
Mark Has Delivered
Yes, thank you, Mark, I have always wondered what the price of obtaining a certification might be, and you have found out. It's better than I thought. Somewhere I got the notion it was $10,000, but I cannot remember when I heard that, where I heard it, or even if I heard it. $3,000 is much better.
|
|
|
Post by mark on Jan 25, 2017 23:35:52 GMT
Here's what I don't understand. If RSS-210 for AM is the 100mW with 10 ft antenna and RSS-210 is for broadcasting to yourself only and BETS-1 is for the intent that the public can hear you why wouldn't the BETS-1 be like FM, and be the stronger of the two transmit ranges? that doesn't make sense. Just wish now I could find out which would get you farther? A DECENT AM radio would be about 300uV/M for a listenable signal. The GE super radio is 65uV/M for a listenable signal. Car radios are better. The Macintosh tuner is 325uV/M for 30DB quieting(not counting the external noise) So taking the GE super 250uV/M@30meters would give you a good signal about a hundred feet away and probably another 300 to 400ft further away. Seems to point to the RSS-210 being the better potential but still think it should be the other way around. Strange. So if you set up the Procaster as instructed and you are told you need the TAC for broadcasting you need to spend $3000 to have less transmit range!!?
Just hope there was no call display when I had the conversation with the Industry Canada person as I called him, returning his call to me, from home, and if inclined COULD be interested in finding my location.
Mark
|
|