While perusing QST for September, 1961, I came across the following..

In 1961, ARRL's BoD conducted a survey of band/mode use of 8000 hams
(membership and license class not specified). Results (operating time):

HF:
CW: 34.4%
AM: 27.8%
SSB: 23.3%
RTTY: 1.5%
FM/NBFM: 0.3%
Other modes: 0.6%

VHF/UHF (all modes): 12.1%

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
While perusing QST for September, 1961, I came across the following..

In 1961, ARRL's BoD conducted a survey of band/mode use of 8000 hams
(membership and license class not specified). Results (operating time):

HF:
CW: 34.4%
AM: 27.8%
SSB: 23.3%
RTTY: 1.5%
FM/NBFM: 0.3%
Other modes: 0.6%

VHF/UHF (all modes): 12.1%

73 de Jim, N2EY

I believe the ARRL has a relatively recent survey on its website about the
same thing. I'd dig it out but will wait till later to do so as it's time
to hit the sack.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

N2EY wrote:

While perusing QST for September, 1961, I came across the following..

In 1961, ARRL's BoD conducted a survey of band/mode use of 8000 hams
(membership and license class not specified). Results (operating time):

HF:
CW: 34.4%
AM: 27.8%
SSB: 23.3%
A big reason for SSB is that, in a pile up, the
receiving station can make out people's voices
without carrier heterodyne whistles. Also no
wasted power transmitting carriers. Take a
listen to a crouded CB channel sometime and hear
all those heterodyne whistles.
RTTY: 1.5%
FM/NBFM: 0.3%
NBFM might have been better than SSB except it's
wider bandwidth...
Other modes: 0.6%

VHF/UHF (all modes): 12.1%


Even back then, half the hams perferred voice
(phone) modes (AM, SSB, FM). Compared to a bit
over 1/3 perferring CW.

In article . net, robert casey
writes:

A big reason for SSB is that, in a pile up, the
receiving station can make out people's voices
without carrier heterodyne whistles.

Not just in a pileup, either.

Also no
wasted power transmitting carriers. Take a
listen to a crouded CB channel sometime and hear
all those heterodyne whistles.

I'll take your word for it ;-)

The biggest reasons for SSB displacing AM on the ham bands, IMHO, a

1) Allows more simultaneous QSOs in a given amount of spectrum
2) Greater "talk power" from a given rig (all the power is in the sidebands on
SSB vs. ~2/3 of it in the carrier on AM)
3) High power SSB can be less expensive to build and operate than high power
AM.

RTTY: 1.5%
FM/NBFM: 0.3%
NBFM might have been better than SSB except it's
wider bandwidth...

No, NBFM was even worse than AM in terms of "talk power". At the narrow
deviations allowed for hams below 29 MHz, an NBFM transmitter was roughly
equivalent to an AM transmitter running one-fourth the power. OTOH heterodynes
were much reduced - capture effect meant you heard the strongest signal and
little else.

Other modes: 0.6%

VHF/UHF (all modes): 12.1%

Even back then, half the hams perferred voice
(phone) modes (AM, SSB, FM). Compared to a bit
over 1/3 perferring CW.

Yep - despite the fact that in those days the spectrum available for US hams to
use HF 'phone was much less than today. And the rig-cost differential was much
greater. No WARC bands back then, and 160 wasn't included in the survey.

It should be remembered that in 1961:

- only ~8 years had passed since Generals and Conditionals got access to HF
'phone on the ham bands between 2 and 25 MHz

- only ~7 years had passed since 'phone was allowed on 40 meters, and 15 meters
was opened to hams

- there were less than a quarter million US hams

- VHF/UHF repeaters were almost unknown on the ham bands. RTTY meant an
electromechanical teleprinter in the shack, whose cost new exceeded the cost of
many hams' entire stations.

It would be interesting to see how the mode and band use would break down
today.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article . net,
robert casey
writes:

A big reason for SSB is that, in a pile up, the
receiving station can make out people's voices
without carrier heterodyne whistles.

Not just in a pileup, either.

Also no
wasted power transmitting carriers. Take a
listen to a crouded CB channel sometime and hear
all those heterodyne whistles.

I'll take your word for it ;-)

The biggest reasons for SSB displacing AM on the ham bands, IMHO,
a

1) Allows more simultaneous QSOs in a given amount of spectrum
2) Greater "talk power" from a given rig (all the power is in the
sidebands on
SSB vs. ~2/3 of it in the carrier on AM)
3) High power SSB can be less expensive to build and operate than
high power
AM.

RTTY: 1.5%
FM/NBFM: 0.3%
NBFM might have been better than SSB except it's
wider bandwidth...

No, NBFM was even worse than AM in terms of "talk power". At the
narrow
deviations allowed for hams below 29 MHz, an NBFM transmitter was
roughly
equivalent to an AM transmitter running one-fourth the power. OTOH
heterodynes
were much reduced - capture effect meant you heard the strongest
signal and
little else.

Other modes: 0.6%

VHF/UHF (all modes): 12.1%

Even back then, half the hams perferred voice
(phone) modes (AM, SSB, FM). Compared to a bit
over 1/3 perferring CW.

Yep - despite the fact that in those days the spectrum available for
US hams to
use HF 'phone was much less than today. And the rig-cost differential
was much
greater. No WARC bands back then, and 160 wasn't included in the
survey.

It should be remembered that in 1961:

- only ~8 years had passed since Generals and Conditionals got access
to HF
'phone on the ham bands between 2 and 25 MHz

- only ~7 years had passed since 'phone was allowed on 40 meters, and
15 meters
was opened to hams

- there were less than a quarter million US hams

- VHF/UHF repeaters were almost unknown on the ham bands. RTTY meant
an
electromechanical teleprinter in the shack, whose cost new exceeded
the cost of
many hams' entire stations.

It would be interesting to see how the mode and band use would break
down
today.

73 de Jim, N2EY

That is almost interesting.

I looked at it again today. Whatever I saw in the information the
other day is gone. It's not the least bit interesting.

bb

bb wrote:

I looked at it again today. Whatever I saw in the information the
other day is gone. It's not the least bit interesting.


Brian, won't your new news reader do quotes? I'm confused! (yeah, not
too hard for me to get that way) 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

I've been using google, now google beta. Yech!
I'm not sure of the suck-factor, maybe 8 on a scale of 10?

Subject: Mode/Band Use in 1961
From: "bb"
Date: 12/19/2004 7:36 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: .com

I've been using google, now google beta. Yech!
I'm not sure of the suck-factor, maybe 8 on a scale of 10?

OK...I realize that, in light of the last few months of exchanges, that
anything I say sounds bad, however I'd have to say that your assessment is
accurate and that trying to follow some of your posts is problematic since it
doesn't requote ANY of whom you are responding to.

And we've actually had some mutually agreeable things to say.

73

Steve, K4YZ