Will, KI4POV alerted us to this -- we've been reading about it for some time. I have always found it worrisome. Here is why: ARRL -- an organization that has its roots in HOMEBREW radio -- seems to be adopting standards that will discourage radio homebrewing. They seem to be pushing for transmitter cleanliness standards that can only be met by advanced, SDR-based, manufactured radios.
I realize that the number of hams who actually build their own SSB gear is shockingly small. Many of us eschew SDR architecture because of its complexity, and because much of it is based on CPU, ADC, and FPGA chips that, well, are manufactured by some distant company, and are NOT homebrewed by us.
I am sure the Iphone in my pocket will meet or exceed the ARRL's Clean Signal Initiative standards. But should this be the model that radio amateurs follow? Is the ARRL -- with its badges! -- moving us closer to FCC standards that will -- in effect -- outlaw things like non-SDR architecture, LC oscillators, and homebrew crystal filters? What about older boatanchor gear? Will the new standards be applied to my Hallicrafters HT-37? Or my DX-100? And what about the homebrew CW gear that is sometimes (all too rarely) heard on the ham bands? These "rigs" (they deserve that title) often use (GASP!) tubes. It seems that under the ARRL's CSI, all of these kinds of rigs will have to go. They will all have to be replaced by properly-badged SDR mystery boxes from overseas manufacturers. Get out your credit cards guys, and put away the soldering irons! A new day has dawned, brought to you by the ARRL CSI!
I can hear the howls of complaint already: Bill is such a trolodyte. He is opppsed to progress. He is in favor of dirty signals. He would have been with those defiantly proclaiming "SPARK FOREVER!" He refuses to embrace progress and get with the CSI program.
Well, if the new program does -- in effect -- lead to the prohibition of simple, homebrew circuitry by radio AMATEURS -- if it does move us ever closer to the day when the only way to meet purity standards is via a manufactured SDR mystery box, I am opposed to that. I prefer homebrew rigs.
Here is the latest on this ARRL initiative:
https://www.arrl.org/files/file/QST%20Binaries/April%202026/Spatta%20Clean%20Signal%20Initiative.pdf
In an era when we’re surrounded by cheap switch mode power supplies, belching out appalling RF pollution, this seems more than a little ironic.
ReplyDeleteSM PSUs - the ones that are built to meet the standards would be fine. But then component count is reduced to minimum for production. Which means the filtering components are now jumper wires.
DeleteI completely agree with Paul. Furthermore I recently saw (on a Kiwi SDR Waterfall) a SSB signal on 15m band, that was about 9kHz wide.
ReplyDeleteI tuned in to find out is was not a homebrew rig, just the usual
overdriven PA in order to make it to whatever rare DX.
In such cases a pink ticket would do. I bet many homebrew rigs
provide a much cleaner signal.
73
Peter/DL3PB
It appears they will be turning us homebrewers into lawbreakers soon. The upside is that white collar criminals are rarely punished in our country, with the exception being Martha Stewart!
ReplyDelete-- Walter KA4KXX
I view the ARRL as an organization in free-fall as witnessed by the extensive leadership positions at HQ that remain unfilled. Additionally, note the continued year-over-year drop in paid membership, plus the demographic spread in current membership. With only one in every six licensed hams belonging to the ARRL, ask- WHY? Is the ARRL becoming an appliance operator's club for the elderly? With only 130,000 paid members and falling annually at a near double-digit rate, one needs to look around to see that the ARRL has become essentially irrelevant to the ham community at large. Purity Standards? I don't intend to begin wearing a chastity belt at my age... Yes. I also qualify as "Elderly". And I do still relish the smell of "Soldersmoke"!
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can tell, these standards and "badges" are intended only for internal ARRL use in their product reviews published in QST. I suppose manufacturers would want to use the badges they "earn" as part of their marketing. But I see nothing in the article that could have any impact on amateur-built transmitters, unless we'll be submitting our rigs to the ARRL for testing (yeah, sure). This "Clean Signal Initiative" seems to be about making it clearer to the amateur consumer (in their reading of QST product reviews) which rigs are really good (with respect to signal purity) and which are not.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the comment that the ARRL is in "free fall," but that's all the more reason to not confuse it with the FCC or other national regulatory agencies. The ARRL didn't abandon the CW requirement, the FCC did. The ARRL didn't dumb-down the license exams, the FCC did. There's no hint in this article of somehow translating these product-review standards into FCC regulations, and I can't imagine what the ARRL's motive for promoting that would be. Interestingly enough, the Clean Signal Initiative seems to focus as much on CW signals as on SSB ones. This might suggest the ARRL pays at least some attention to niche interests among its members, and though QST doesn't seem to show it, that could include homebrewers as well.
All that aside, are these product-review standards more restrictive than what a conscientious and careful analog-homebrewer could satisfy? When it comes to key-clicks, splatter, bandwidth, and other signal-purity concerns, haven't we already been policing ourselves in this regard? If occasional challenges for homebrewers are a good thing, maybe trying to meet (if we don't already) the standards of the Clean Signal Initiative would be a worthwhile. They're certainly *not* a threat.
Well Todd, the FCC can't be to blame for the content of QST magazine, can they? Who dumbed that down? I think ARRL has a big interest (advertising dollars) in getting hams to believe that the only way they can have good, clean signals is by BUYING some of the radios ADVERTISED in QST. And as I said, this is kind of an attitude thing. Many modern hams really seem to think that only by "purchasing" (they use that verb a lot) the bestest, newest, fanciest radio can they achive the Nirvana of CLEAN SIGNAL! So they will be looking for those rigs in QST that have the GOLD BADGE. As soon as you tell these guys that you are running a homebrew rig, many of them will then start picking apart your signal: Its too wide, its too bassy, it clicks when you hit the PTT, and, by the way, what setting do you have menu item 35 set to anyway? They seem to be saying "get with the program OM! Buy (no, PURCHASE!) a new Yaekenicom 77770000 and you will then be able to produce a CLEAN SIGNAL just like the rest of the Big Boys." The truth is most of these guys couldn't homebrew a rig if their life depended on it. I think the ARRL and QST is responsible for the de-amateur-ization of the amateur radio. And I think this "Clean Signal Initiative" is part of that effort. We will have to disagree on this one. 73 Bill Hi7/N2CQR
ReplyDeleteIs this the first step toward the "ARRL Clean Signal Police"? Sounds like a federal agency we all know about, and not just the FCC.
ReplyDelete1) Where is the transparency? Who are these "respected RF experts, and engineers from several manufacturers"? What are their credentials ?
2) Are they really applying these seemingly arbitrary limits to only "purchased" equipment, and not as a means to extend to homebrew equipment? This is the way these things start.
3) "The ARRL Lab is central to the CSI program; it will
be the only lab that can certify a device as being CSI
compliant". Really?? Does the ARRL Lab maintain an internal Calibration Lab with working NIST traceable standards? And, for example, what are the spectrum analyzer test parameters? Items like RBW, VBW , the Spectrum Analyzer's own SFDR? They are just as important as the item under test.
We already have FCC CFR 47 97.307 Emission standards that have served us well. Instead of being the "purchased" Amateur Radio equivalent of Consumer Reports, QST needs to refocus on what it did well before- educate the membership in the radio science! No wonder we keep the old copies of QST, know those articles by heart, but not so much the recent ones. The recent ones lack enduring technical value.
I see this as a cause that Soldersmoke, QRP ARCI, FPqrp and other homebrew groups and blogs need to take up and express their concerns directly to ARRL Executive Board.
It's an initiative with standards for manufacturers to strive towards. It's not a law.
ReplyDeleteAnd if it bothers you so much then maybe you should look at yourself and see if you are being a good user of the spectrum. When your transmitter keys, does it splatter all over the spectrum?
And there is nothing that say end users can't build SDR platforms.
Let me ask you (since you remain anonymous): Have you ever homebrewed a non-SDR rig? Do you know what we are talking about here? Also, when you say "there is nothing to say that end-users can't build SDR platforms." This seems to assume that ONLY SDR platforms can reach the vaunted purity goals of this intiative. And what if we "end users" just don't WANT to build "SDR platforms." Maybe because doing this involves more downloading and formatting and library configuring and compiling (software stuff) and IC plugging (maybe an ADC and an FPGA?) than many of us think of as "homebrewing." What if these "SDR platforms" become the only way to reach the purity goals set by this initiative? What if only by using these "platforms" we will be considered "good users of the spectrum"? It is not a law. Not yet. But with the ARRL and commercial manufacturers behind it, it could someday soon become the law.
DeletePete N6QW has some really good points on all of this. His comments on the influence of Apache Lab ANAN's "Pure Signal" system on the ARRL's "Clean Signal" initiative is really illuminating. Also, can you imagine trying to homebrew an "adaptive predistortion system built into the OpenHPSDR/Thetis ecosystem"? Forget it. Check out Pete's blog post: https://n6qw.blogspot.com/2026/03/we-interrupt-this-program-for-breaking.html
ReplyDeleteNormally, I do not dignify an "Anonymous" with a response. You can make yourself known. ALL my published designs have been tested in an NIST traceable lab, with equipment fully compliant to metrology standards. I listen to my own signal as I transmit, never had a side-tone.
ReplyDelete"I don’t always key my transmitter, but when I do, the listeners heap praise on its cleanliness." (This happens often)
"I don’t always build VFOs, but when I do, they stay exactly where I put them." (Some say I go overboard on this, probably so)
Next: Pete N6QW's blogspot entry is hitting the nail square on the head. It makes me wonder why I am still support the ARRL? All that dues for 5+ decades? I keep hoping they can come back to fostering the radio art instead of being Consumer Reports. It's Hope against Hope. I am even writing these words while drinking coffee from an Official ARRL Coffee Mug. Misplaced loyalty?
Last: If the ARRL Lab wants to issue "Badges", how about something that is relevant to the buyer of the "Purchased" rigs: The Right To Repair. They are barking up the wrong tree, and missing what is probably the biggest issue with "purchased" rigs, poor Repairability.
Stay Thirsty for those Pure Sine Waves, My Friend. Stay Thirsty.
SDR operator: your signal is 9Hz off frequency. Response: And?
ReplyDeleteHi Bill - since I mainly operate on CW, I can't speak to the SSB side of this issue. And apart from the Badges/ARRL/Politics of this, I am ok with the idea of promoting better performance of our CW rigs. I like the idea of a home brewer working to make their designs the best they can be - i.e. a pride in the workmanship of our radios that they don't perform poorly. For me, it is not just the challenge of building a radio, but building one that works well. For a CW rig, I don't think good performance is limited to SDR architectures at all. Here is an example - if you go the the April QST, there is a review of the CFT1, a small QRP transceiver. The spectral display of the keying shows a very clean signal that appears to meet the CSI spectral mask limits. Then, if you do a google search for the schematics of the CFT1, you will see that the designer is using a key shaper that is a simple PNP as an integrator to control the bias of the final transmitter gain stage. In fact, this integrator idea has been around for a while - see page 180 figure 95 in SSDRA, and on page 6.64 in EMRFD - I think it was used by Roy Lewallen W7EL in his optimized QRP radio from around 1980. My point here is that we can make our homebrew CW rigs "clean" with a simple integrator circuit and it can perform as well or better that the commercial SDR radios. 73, David N7WMN
ReplyDeleteDavid: Thanks. But -- and I think this is telling -- this program appears to be for MANUFACTURERS ONLY. It sounds to me as if you are a homebrewer, not a manufacturer. Even if your design was clean and pure, as you know, when someone else builds it, all bets are off. So no CSI for you. For Yaesu, Icom and Kenwood yes. For you, no. Again, this helps create the impression that the only way to get a clean signal is to PURCHASE one of the GOLD STAR BADGE radios. 73 Bill
DeleteAlong the lines of properly keyed waveshape, one can do the extra step of shaping the rise and fall waveforms independently. EMRFD does touch on this (fig 6.114-D), where nearly identical rise/fall can be obtained. Google "MOuSeFET revision 11" on my website. Section 4, schematic shows a keying circuit for the VFO buffer, Q6-Q7 comprising a totem-pole driver. This yields relatively independent rise/fall. EMRFD recommends 1-2msec for both rise/fall. I went for 2ms (measured at PA output), but you can adjust as needed.
ReplyDelete73!-WN2A