[TenTec] Good Mike Technique

bob barnes k0wtz at yahoo.com
Tue Feb 25 14:40:01 EST 2014

first thing turn the compressor off!!!

all things are possible in Christ Jesus our savior

On Tue, 2/25/14, Bob McGraw - K4TAX <RMcGraw at Blomand.net> wrote:

 Subject: [TenTec] Good Mike Technique
 To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec at contesting.com>
 Date: Tuesday, February 25, 2014, 12:29 PM
 Yes, I agree and in my earlier post I
 stated; "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."    Also, I've
 mentioned many times that good audio has a lot to do with
 good mike technique.
 Bob Heil has a very good presentation and demonstration that
 can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX9J6Vre3j8   The
 mike technique starts about 20 minutes in and runs for about
 8 to 10 minutes.  It well worth watching and there's
 lots to be learned.
 Bob, K4TAX
 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Reid" <n1068d at aol.com>
 To: <tentec at contesting.com>
 Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 8:51 AM
 Subject: Re: [TenTec] In praise of older technology
 > 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
 > -----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
 > 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
 > _______________________________________________
 > TenTec mailing list
 > TenTec at contesting.com
 > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
 TenTec mailing list
 TenTec at contesting.com

More information about the TenTec mailing list