[TenTec] Mike & Eagle

Tue Aug 26 18:24:18 EDT 2014

I do something similar to Bob's test procedure -  I test every 
microphone on my computer FIRST - because I figure if it sounds crappy 
on the computer it is likely to sound crappy on the rig.  But Bob's 
further on-air test is a swell way to make sure it not only sounds OK on 
the rig, but confirm your speech processor, EQ, and other settings are 
in order, as well.

My test protocol is similar to Bob's - he is the expert, so ultimately 
listen to hims...  set the transceiver to Flat EQ, and no speech 
processor, and transmit into a dummy load.   I employ one of my SW 
receivers (usually a Kenwood R2000)  which has a LINE-OUT signal that is 
plugged directly into the LINE-IN input on a computer sound card.  The 
run the receiver with no antenna, or maybe just a short hank of wire, to 
avoid overload, or I use a receive only antenna located in my front 
yard, far enough from the transmit antennas, to avoid overloading it, 
and record what it hears.   Only after I am satisfied with this result 
do I mess with EQ and speech processor settings.

I also get a couple of local hams monitor and record my signal.  I 
distribute a really small recording applet to minimize variations, and 
figure most sound card DACs are consistent enough for Government work. 
Not as exacting as Bob specifies, but I don't worry about variations in 
DACs.   ;-)    I don't mess with the "reference" sample, but that may be 
a good plan to assure the recording process is accurate in the first 
place - kinda like measuring a control group against the experimental 
group.

Anyway... just my take...

------------------  K8JHR --------------------

On 8/26/2014 8:30 AM, Bob McGraw - K4TAX wrote:
> Yes, the connectors are "tight" in terms of working space.  Too much
> heat, i.e. too large of a tip will transfer too much heat and things
> begin to melt.
>
> For audio quality determinations, I prefer to use the "comparison"
> method. I'll outline my method.  This does require two suitable radios.
>
> Having the "monitor" radio being the 2nd radio connected to the computer
> for digital modes, I use that signal path along with a free software
> being AUDACITY to record the audio.  I first find a signal on the band
> that I think sounds specially good and I record about 30 seconds of that
> signal. That becomes my "reference" signal.  I also use external
> speakers on the computer and listen to both the reference signal and my
> test signal through these speakers.   Remember, the path much be
> identical for accurate comparisons.
>
> Now using the mike and radio of choice on a dummy load, same mode,
> frequency and such.  I transmit about 30 seconds while recording that
> transmission and then listen to it and the other signal.  AUDACITY
> allows one to easily switch between the two recorded segments.   By
> doing this one is using the exact audio path, computer, speakers and
> such to judge ones audio.  If it doesn't sound as you wish, then
> adjustments of any nature should be made.  This includes mike-to-mouth
> position or changes in audio levels, speech processing or even changing
> mikes.  Again repeat the process and each time a change is made and
> compare the new configuration to the reference signal that one thinks
> sounds specially good.
>
> Now admittingly, ones personal voice will not typically sound exactly
> like another's voice, but one can easily discern the differences.  When
> finished, just note the various values on the radio, the mouth-to-mike
> position and such.  From this one can be quite reasonably assured their
> signal will always sound great on the air.
>
> In using this process, if humm, clicks, buzz or such is heard on the
> comparative recordings, the source should be investigated and resolved.
>
> I will stress that using the Monitor mode or headphones while recording
> ones audio will not accurately  reveal the true audio sound.
>
> 73
> Bob, K4TAX
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Farler" <k4avx1 at windstream.net>
> To: <tentec at contesting.com>
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 8:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Mike & Eagle
>
>
>> Thanks for confirming what I've tried.  I think I'd better go
>> back and check that 8 pin connector pin-out again.  For
>> this old guys hands and eyes, I wish they had stayed with
>> the 4 pin connector  :>)
>>
>> The mini-din on the back caused me much grief.  It wanted
>> to melt - wonder if it came from radioshack!
>>
>> And yes, I was told that the headset mike I was using
>> on the OMNI 6+ sounded as good as the TT desk mike with
>> the same kind of element.  Ear piece quality is a consideration.
>> 73,
>> John, K4AVX
>>
>>> Message: 3
>>> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 16:23:44 -0400
>>> From: Richards<jrichards at k8jhr.com>
>>> To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment<tentec at contesting.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [TenTec] MIKE & Eagle
>>> Message-ID:<53FA49D0.1040205 at k8jhr.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>>>
>>> John --
>>>
>>> My test for mic quality is to make a recording on the computer using a
>>> low sampling rate, maybe 11.5 Hz - and if it sounds OK, then it should
>>> sound OK on the air.  If not,  try another model.
>>
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:16:24 -0700
>> From: Jim Brown<k9yc at audiosystemsgroup.com>
>> To:tentec at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [TenTec] MIKE & Eagle
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TenTec mailing list
>> TenTec at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>