Heil Proset rx audio

RKILE at delphi.com RKILE at delphi.com
Mon May 16 23:51:37 EDT 1994

C-mon Guys,
    You would think the seasoned contesters, eg. mostly extras would have
enough brains to send the damn things back to Heil to have the proper low
impedance drivers installed.
    If that isn't the case turn the volume up on your "Miracle Ears" to help
compensate for the loss of hearing caused by years of 120 dbm blasts of what
many people would call noise!


Bob, KG7D             "rkile at delphi.com"

>From John W. Brosnahan" <broz at csn.org  Tue May 17 16:16:27 1994
From: John W. Brosnahan" <broz at csn.org (John W. Brosnahan)
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 09:16:27 -0600
Subject: FT-1000 and Heil headphones
Message-ID: <199405171516.AA22167 at teal.csn.org>

To: Bob, KG7D
I am afraid you have missed the point about the Heil headphones and the Yaesu
FT-1000.  Because of the wimpy audio driver IC in the Yaesu only very
efficient headphones with the exact right impedance will have enough
audio.  Heil has tried to redesign his headphones to accomodate the 
limitations of the FT-1000 and Yaesu has now changed the output resistor to 
provide a little more output, but any series resistor in the radio
means that lowering the headphone impedance beyond a certain point will
result in less audio not more from the Yaesu.  Even with the lower
impedance drivers from Heil the audio is still only adequate at best.
Heil headphones work fine with other radios that have an adequate audio
amplifier and no series resistors, because they use the speaker  
amplifier (about 3 watts) to drive the headphones.  It is just that Yaesu 
needed a stereo amplifier to accommodate the two receivers and the speaker
amplifier is only a mono amp so they added a separate stereo headphone
amp and tried to get away with a little 100 mW IC that is OK with some
headphones, but not all.  Yaesu (USA) is aware of the problem and Yaesu 
(Japan) SEEMS to be aware of the problem since they have made a design change 
in the value of the series resistors, but the amplifier is really marginal,
at best, on both power output before the THD becomes excessive and on gain.
I am looking at ways to easily make improvements in the RADIO, which is the
limiting factor.  Heil has lowered his headphone impedance to accommodate
the recent modification by Yaesu that lowered the series resistor but in fact
the lower impedance headphone drivers may result in LOWER audio when
using older FT-1000s.  I feel Heil has bent over backwards to try and
accommodate a marginal design from Yaesu.  And my mission is to try and
understand the problem, which I do now, and find as simple a way as 
possible to improve the results when using the Heil headphones with the
Yaesu FT-1000. 
Stay tuned for the next exciting adventure in the pursuit of enough
audio to make up for my years in the sound reinforcement business.
73  John  W0UN      broz at csn.org

>From Fred Cady ieefc at msu.oscs.montana.edu" <fred_c at ece.ee.montana.edu  Tue May 17 15:37:22 1994
From: Fred Cady ieefc at msu.oscs.montana.edu" <fred_c at ece.ee.montana.edu (Fred Cady ieefc at msu.oscs.montana.edu)
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 10:37:22 EDT
Message-ID: <0097E8F9.2FBFAAA0.1 at ece.ee.montana.edu>

Recently we had a discussion about various nefarious practices and 
the lineage of QSLers and QSLees for contest QSOs.  Recently, in 
a bunch of cards from the bureau, I received a QSL for SSB SS
QSO from a USA 4-land call.  Now it does annoy me when somebody
expects me to supply the envelope and the stamp, and even more, the
time to address the envelope, but I have two questions about this.
First, how did the US station get his card into the bureau.  I've
always thought that the bureau was for DX stations.  Second, how
do I respond to this turkey?  Send it back through the bureau?

Fred KE7X

>From MAVES.AWS at hqaws.safb.af.mil (Maves, Capt Brian)  Tue May 17 12:42:00 1994
From: MAVES.AWS at hqaws.safb.af.mil (Maves, Capt Brian) (Maves, Capt Brian)
Date: Tue, 17 May 94 11:42
Subject: <None>
Message-ID: <199405171645.LAA25938 at kirk.safb.af.mil>

Scott, KA9FOX writes
>> I'm all for stretching technology to the limits<<

Bill, KM9P responds
>>Excuse me...  But, in no contest is there a section in the rules that 

I agree with Bill.  SPIRIT OF THE CONTEST should not be used to refute or 

discredit innovative approaches to contesting.  However, I do believe in 
the "intent" of a rule (Yes, a fine distinction).  Rules aren't generated 

to impede competition, but instead written to provide minimal and 
limits on operation.  The question of "rule intent" should be left to the 

guys who wrote it; therefore, the CQ folks should have the final say on 
this one.  I think this is reasonable, as long as the "intent" is clear 
and consistent.  (Is it naive to believe in Utopia?)

We all recognize the idea of "intent," otherwise we  wouldn't be singling 

out a literal interpretation of the "station proximity rule."  I would 
bet the folks at CQ didn't write this rule in the literal sense, but 
instead "intended" for the rule to apply to both the transmitter and 
receiver, or 
the 90's equivalent, a tranceiver.  (I think someone already pointed out 
that the rules now state "transmitter and receiver," so this point may be 

 Sure, sponsors implement some rules to discourage certain practices 
(i.e., outlawing the octopus), but they shouldn't disqualify an honest 
effort enhanced by innovation.  I propose we tighten up the proximity 
questions of the multi-op classes, and then go for a new category called 
Experimenter or Innovation Class operation.  This could be a truely 
unlimited class.  If you don't fit into the traditional operation 
classes, you can compete in this one.  KP4UY's 28k plus QSO effort will 
set the mark for all who dare to follow.  Competition will inspire 
innovation, and the only limitations on scores will be technology and 
imagination.  (How many "tion" words fit in one sentence anyway?  At 
least four.)

In the mean time KP4UY should wire it all together and have at it.  The 
rules committee can sort things out after the fact.  Remember, "Tis 
easier to ask for forgiveness, than ask for permission."  Besides, on 
this one, I think 
satisfaction lies in proof of concept and a killer score, rather than a 
plaque on the wall.

Brian "bam bam" Maves, NB9T (deep in the "hole")
maves at hqaws.safb.af.mil 

P.S.   I generated this on 11 May but my outgoing Internet has been down. 

 I apoligize for not getting into the fray until now.  Judging from 
yesterday's mail, KP4UY (sry don't know your first name) has decided to 
go for it.    GOOD LUCK!

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list