George,
Thank you. Your first 3 paragraphs are a good explanation of what my
concern is. The borrowed D-104 that I am using seems to be doing a good job
of reducing the low end and increasing the 1000 to 2000 range.
I have no more than a minor passing interest in "hi fi" sound so the fact
that the Scout doesn't go below 300 Hz does not bother me in the least.
What I want is top draw ,clean, undistorted communications audio. As I
understand (or misunderstand ) the IMD numbers the Scout does not seem
capable of top draw,clean, undistorted communications audio. If I
understand it correctly, if we listened to the audio of an Omni V with a
Heil HC 4 element and a Scout also with an HC 4 ,the difference in
frequency response would not be earth shattering, but the Omni would be
cleaner with less distortion than the Scout. If this distortion can only
be identified by looking at a scope then I'm not overly concerned , but if
ham ears can easily hear the greater distortion from a Scout as compared to
an Omni V then this bothers me. I'm not very concerned about the frequency
response numbers that you found.
tnx-Bob KB1CIW
At 12:54 PM 8/25/02 -0500, you wrote:
(1)>Bob, I took a look at the transmitted audio spectrum of the Argo 5-watt
>version of the Scout yesterday using the SpectraPRO analysis program. The
>audio is rather on the low-frequency side with a pronounced "hump" in the
>response from about 300 to 800 Hz, flat more or less to about 1500 and then
>tapering down about 10-15 dB to 2500 and nothing above that.
>
>(2) If that reflects what the Scout does, then any EQ or mic change that
would
>reduce the low-end range by about 10 dB and increase the high end about
>5-10 dB above about 1500 Hz would seem to be an improvement.
>
>(3)Bob Heil tells us that we need a rise of about 5 dB or so in the (roughly)
>1000 - 2000 Hz range for best intelligibility.
>
>(4) My bottom line is that the radio is inherently incapable of transmitting
>the low frequencies and extended high frequencies that are the earmark of
>the hi-fi signals. I would suggest that you attempt to smooth out the
>response by reducing the low end response and boosting the high end and
>placing a "hump" in the mid-range.
>
>A Heil HC-5 mic element would probably do wonders for improving the sound
>with no additional EQ required. Detail on the Heil website at
>
> http://www. heilsound.com
>
>73/72/oo, George W5YR - the Yellow Rose of Texas
>Fairview, TX 30 mi NE of Dallas in Collin county EM13qe
>Amateur Radio W5YR, in the 56th year and it just keeps getting better!
>QRP-L 1373 NETXQRP 6 SOC 262 COG 8 FPQRP 404 TEN-X 11771 I-LINK 11735
>Icom IC-756PRO #02121 Kachina 505 DSP #91900556 Icom IC-765 #02437
>
>
>robert k stephens wrote:
>>
>> Tnx for your explanation. I'm beginning to understand that regardless of
>> what mic or EQ unit I buy, the Scout may not be quite capable of the crisp,
>> clean, top drawer communications audio that I desire. There is nothing
>> really wrong with the Scout's transmit ssb (it is after all only a small
>> inexpensive portable rig and I have been expecting too much from it) but I
>> would like something better. Eventually I'll want to upgrade to another
rig .
>>
>> On the other hand it still is my understanding that the Scout produces a
>> not perfect but pretty darn good cw signal . My cw friends think I should
>> spend more time with the dits and dahs anyway <grin>
>>
>> tnx
>> Bob KB1CIW
>_______________________________________________
>TenTec mailing list
>TenTec@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
|