What's "Spread Spectrum Technology"??

Tonto Yoder · « **on:** 12 Sep 2004, 03:38 pm »

Ampzilla 2000 and Son of Ampzilla are both made by Bongiornio's Spread Spectrum Technologies. But I can't tell WHY he chose that name for the company???

I remember that Audioquest claimed to use spread spectrum technology in its early cables to indicate that different gauge individual wires were bundled together, supposedly each gauge was "best" for certain frequencies.

I also remember Audioquest being blasted on rec-audio.high-end for bastardizing actress Hedy Lamarr's REAL (and patented) spread spectrum ideas; I think Lamarr's patent dealt with something non-audio like radio transmission or radar/sonar or something.

Does Bongiornio harken back to earlier uses of SST or is he being original?
I couldn't find an explanation on the site.

Thanks for any input

Marbles · « **Reply #1 on:** 12 Sep 2004, 03:48 pm »

This might help you:

http://sss-mag.com/ss.html

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #2 on:** 12 Sep 2004, 04:00 pm »

Quote from: Tonto Yoder

Ampzilla 2000 and Son of Ampzilla are both made by Bongiornio's Spread Spectrum Technologies. But I can't tell WHY he chose that name for the company???

I wonder if the name has anything to do with the snappy suits he wears....... a sharp dressed man indeed !!!

the cool threads too......

Tonto Yoder · « **Reply #3 on:** 12 Sep 2004, 04:53 pm »

Quote from: Marbles

This might help you:

http://sss-mag.com/ss.html

Nope, I think it confuses me even more. That's the SST that Hedy Lamarr was involved in, but I'm not sure of the connection/application to audio amplifiers. Of course, I appreciate the attempt!.

audioengr · « **Reply #4 on:** 12 Sep 2004, 05:15 pm »

It usually refers to a clock that is intentionally frequency modulated over a narrow range in order that the emissions from it are not narrow-band. This allows high-emissions devices, like computers to pass FCC emissiins regulations. It is really just a loop-hole.

Sedona Sky Sound · « **Reply #5 on:** 12 Sep 2004, 07:09 pm »

I believe Spread Spectrum Technologies was originally a separate company (not owned or started by James) that bought out Bongiorno Designs. Here is some basic background:

http://audiotools.com/deadb.html#bongiorno

Bongiorno's formal title then became the Chief Designer for SST when they bought him out. His title is now President of SST since I think he bought back some of the interest in the company and/or was given total day-to-day control.

So basically spread spectrum technologies (as a science) really does not have anything to do with amps and pre-amps. SST is just a carry-over name from another company.

Julian
www.sedonaskysound.com

Carlman · « **Reply #6 on:** 12 Sep 2004, 08:22 pm »

I have a 2.4GHz digital cordless phone that claims to use "spread spectrum technology"... Supposedly, the receiver scans for cleanest channel and then transmits over it. I was told by the salesman that my phone uses this technology for higher security.... In fact, I was shown where it was written in the salesman's corporate literature... because I still didn't understand what he was talking about....

That's the only place I've heard the term used.

In fact, I have 'Extreme' SST:

ctviggen · « **Reply #7 on:** 12 Sep 2004, 09:16 pm »

As the cited page states, there are basically two types of spread spectrum: frequency hopping and fixed frequency. Frequency hopping "hops" the center frequency around. Both use a "spread" signal. To spread the original signal, a code of some sort is used. Without the code, it's very hard to "despread" the spread signal to get back the original signal. Thus, spread spectrum is more secure. Spreading, as audio engineer also points out, can be used to spread a clock signal so that the spread clock signal produces lower EMI at all frequencies. I don't know how this relates to amplifiers, so Julian is likely right.

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #8 on:** 12 Sep 2004, 09:39 pm »

Thanks Julian...that site, audiotools.com has lots of great information on on all kinds of hi-fi and audio equipment !!!

amitm · « **Reply #9 on:** 12 Sep 2004, 11:15 pm »

Quote from: Carlman

I have a 2.4GHz digital cordless phone that claims to use "spread spectrum technology"... Supposedly, the receiver scans for cleanest channel and then transmits over it. I was told by the salesman that my phone uses this technology for higher security.... In fact, I was shown where it was written in the salesman's corporate literature... because I still didn't understand what he was talking about....

That's the only place I've heard the term used.

In fact, I have

That, plus half the cellular phone companies use Spread Spectrum Technology. In particular, Verizon, Sprint, and Nextel are the nationwide companies that use it. The premise is that instead of alloting small frequency bands to each "user," each user instead uses the whole spectrum. Users are distinguished from each other using different methods, including code spreading as ctviggen pointed out. Spread spectrum technology has been around for a while now (40-50 years), and was used primarily by the military to communicate earlier. It has several advantages, including the fact that one can make communication secure, and that a simple jammer (which works on a single frequency) cannot stop communication. That plus it works well under fading conditions. I could go on, but I think I am already way off topic here.

--amit

Tonto Yoder · « **Reply #10 on:** 12 Sep 2004, 11:43 pm »

Thanks Julian--that makes sense

If it had been some new amp technology, I would have expected something on the website touting its benefits, but couldn't find anything.

bkwiram · « **Reply #11 on:** 13 Sep 2004, 07:18 am »

Getting even farther off-topic...

There are two main digital wireless protocols in use worldwide. One is 'GSM", the European standard, and the other is 'CDMA.' Both protocols are used in the US by different carriers.

CDMA is a spread-spectrum technology adapted from military technology to cell phone use by Qualcomm, which (supposedly) had to solve several difficult technical problems to make it work for mobile telephony. As stated earlier, a CDMA transmission frequency-hops and is difficult to intercept. It is also inherently hospitable to high user density in the spectrum used.

GSM works on a single frequency; multiple users can share the same frequency by being assigned a 'slot' in the timeline. For instance there might be eight timeslots on a given frequency and when you place a call you get slot number 4. All the data you send gets slotted into 4, while others using the same frequency get slots 3, 5, etc.

The original "3G" specification for wireless, to provide videoconferencing and other nifty whatnots, called for a CDMA-based protocol to be used worldwide. This decision was reached because CDMA is technically superior to GSM.

As you can imagine, the Europeans (who developed GSM) and others who had adopted that protocol were not so keen on Qualcomm and others realizing great profits from a CDMA-based world. And there would of course be costs and dislocations involved in switching to a completely different set of equipment, etc.

I haven't followed the situation in the last few years, but if you're asking yourself why 3G is taking so long to show up, there are a few reasons, in particular: 1) it turned out we weren't all slavering for high-priced videoconferencing on our cell phones, 2) the cell companies ran out of money, having vastly overspent in the late 90s ( and rolling out new and improved national networks, particularly in a country as large as the US, is terribly costly), and 3) the technical and political landscape was and is fairly complex.

Just had to get that into the mix.

best,

bk