[TenTec] In praise of older technology

[Doug Reid]

Being the owner of a recording studio  as well as a ham for over 40 years, I can verify that cost has very little to do with frequency response and audio quality of most microphones.  I have built condensor mics costing only a few dollars that perform as well as $500.00 microphones.  Like in the studio, the most valuable piece of equipment is your "ears ".  Everyone thinks the solution to every problem is to throw money at it instead of maybe using better  " mic technique ".  I hate hearing stations where the compressor limiter is set incorrectly and you can hear the audio pumping.

Doug
WD4LNW

-----Original Message-----
From: Richards <jrichards at k8jhr.com>
To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec at contesting.com>
Sent: Mon, Feb 24, 2014 6:40 pm
Subject: Re: [TenTec] In praise of older technology


Well said, Bob.
Last summer, on a Brand X discussion forum, we discussed what is the 
best" microphone and what is the best EQ setting.    I suggested that, 
ecause we only use +/- 2700 Hz audio and RF bandwidth - pretty much any 
ecent microphone costing $15 or more SHOULD be linear across that 
arrow spectrum, and I made recordings of several microphones bearing 
idely different price tags to prove it.  No one has correctly 
dentified the $15 Samson RS10  from the $150 Heil PR-20 or even from 
he $99 Sennheiser e835, and several others by RadioShack, Shure,  and 
he real kicker in the bunch... a $1 computer mic I purchased on eBay.
I dared to suggest audiophiles use EQ to "fix" or compensate for uneven 
oom acoustics ... but oddly enough audiophiles often employ pre-amps 
nd power amps lacking any bass or treble or EQ controls at all - 
nstead they seek uncolored input, and uncolored output, using EQ 
paringly or not at all to compensate for uneven room acoustics.   So, 
n that logic,  maybe we should use FLAT EQ on the transmit audio, on 
he theory of what goes in uncolored and natural, might come out 
ncolored and more natural than if we had messed with it.   After all, 
ost decent microphones are linear across the 200- 2700 Hz +/- range - 
f we want to sound natural, why color it with phoney EQ settings ?
I am sure there is some fallacy lurking in the weeds, but this seems 
ogical to me.  Garbage in... garbage out...     Natural, simple audio 
n... ok you get the picture.
So I keep it simple, I use reasonably good, but not overly expensive 
icrophones, and avoid excessive EQ  coloration (occasionally I add a 
light boost to the mid range frequencies to be more punchy in a 
rowd... but not otherwise.)
Am I missing something?
--------------------------------------  K8JHR  --------------

On 2/24/2014 3:35 PM, Bob McGraw - K4TAX wrote:
 Yep and likely he had a bunch of external processing and EQ equipment as
 well.

 I hate to say it folks but we are using a communication audio range
 which is typically comprising a frequency response between 200 Hz to
 2500 Hz out of the entire audio spectrum   That range is defined by the
 filter, be it hardware or DSP, that is part of the SSB generator.

 Trying to cram wide band audio through a filter of this bandwidth is
 like trying to push a bumble bee through a drinking straw.  Nothing nice
 is going to come out the other end.  Just like I tell the kid in the
 band, it's easy to be loud, just buy another amp and crank it to the
 max.  Now being good, well that takes skill, knowledge and talent.

 Now lets try to get the best quality out of the 200 Hz to 2500 Hz
 spectrum of audio that's available.  It is a lot more of a challenge
 than buying and using some external processing and EQ and broadcast type
 mikes.

_________________________________


l
______________________________________________
enTec mailing list
enTec at contesting.com
ttp://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec