>On Monday 15 April 2002 06:41, Peter Chadwick wrote:
>> Rich said:
>> >- Mo' ALC-meter indication is seemingly not mo' betta.
>>
>> Did anyone say otherwise? Trouble is Rich, the idea of having a cleaner
>> signal is fine, but one is a bit of a lone voice compared with the 'wind it
>> full clockwise' brigade. Still, we have the satisfaction of knowing we've
>> done our bit........
>I reckon ALC meters are often too sluggish.
Indeed.
>TS830, for example: often
>commented that it's cleaner with the processor on - actually, it's not, but
>without clipping the ALC meter doesn't register short speech peaks until they
>are grossly overdriving things. Set up the the mic level with a really loud
>long whistle, then talk normally and the ALC meter doesn't twitch at all but
>the 'scope and analyser say you are hitting peak power.
>
The surprisingly unique things about the TS-830S are that: it is
exceedingly difficult to make dirty and the processor substantially
improves copyability under weak signal conditions. However, with its
built-in RF-NFB disconnected, the 830 is a broad source of ether-wave
pollution.
cheers, Steve
- R. L. Measures, a.k.a. Rich..., 805.386.3734,AG6K,
www.vcnet.com/measures.
end
|