Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Best rig for Hi-Fi SSB??  (Read 5032 times)
W8MW
Member

Posts: 326




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: October 11, 2004, 01:02:49 PM »

KT0DD, I own a TS870 and a 756PRO (original version).  Both receivers are pleasing to the ear and I can listen for long periods without fatigue. If I had to pick one it would be the 870.  Receiver passband opens up to almost 6 kHz and agc is continuously variable. Kenwood has a long history of good audio and I find that true in the 870 just as it was in my 930 and 830.  BTW, widest receiver filter in the PRO is 3.9 khz.

On the transmit side, both rigs are capable of squeaky clean low distortion signals when operated at conservative power output and with microphone gain levels below the ALC threshold. They both have superb transmit audio but the speech processor in the 870 introduces more distortion than the PRO's.  I can get by with a few dB of compression using the PRO but no longer use the processor in the 870.

73 Mike
Logged
W8MW
Member

Posts: 326




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: October 11, 2004, 01:11:16 PM »

Should have said widest receiver filter in the PRO is 3.6.

Logged
KG4RUL
Member

Posts: 2720


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #32 on: October 11, 2004, 01:25:38 PM »

WIRELESS:

This seems to be your endorsement of CBers and illegal activities.

======

..... And if I was a CBer I would be at least a little proud since the US Homeland Security is enlisting CB truck drivers into a watch program according to the news last week. I did not hear any kind of an invite to hams extended. Even though CB truck drivers are making and using illegal amps, the government is trying to use them to secure this country. ..... The average CBer is probably brighter than hams like KTODD will ever be.
Logged
WB2WIK
Member

Posts: 20595




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: October 11, 2004, 01:38:58 PM »

Dennis, it's best not to feed the trolls...
Logged
W8JI
Member

Posts: 9296


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #34 on: October 11, 2004, 05:22:09 PM »

The best answer to the question was from a W3, who understands what we hear. The key is not in 6kHz response that does nothing but add annoying spits and spats up AND down the band, but making the speech range sound cleaner.

There is no reason at all to open up a rig to 6kHz to have excellent sounding speech. The idea you need frequenices beyond what the typical male or female voice contains is just plain silly. Of course a person should be able to be as silly as he wants as long as it is not on a band with people stacked next to each other.

With the technical aspects in mind, I don't know why people would pick rigs with transmitter third-order in the low -30dB range and then dumps accented highs and lows into what basically amounts to something that is nearly acting like an intentional mixer. I think maybe people are confusing processed "radio DJ/announcer" sound with good clean audio.

I'd look for a clean rig first, and then worry about balancing the audio.

73 Tom
Logged
KW4CQ
Member

Posts: 129




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: October 13, 2004, 05:57:27 PM »

Todd,
You might care to check into this Yahoo group which provides intelligent discussions on the subject:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ssbaudio/

To all those who hold a negative viewpoint on enhanced SSB audio, I have this to ask:

Why do more and more people on SSB today invariably ask "How's my audio sound?".

Good luck.
Logged
W8JI
Member

Posts: 9296


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #36 on: October 14, 2004, 04:52:00 PM »

I generally have significant problems copying people who enhance their audio when they are weak, and the also very often have enhanced off-channel IM products.

Other than when they call me and they are weak or when they operated within 5kHz or so of where I am listening, I care less what they do.

Make no mistake about it, when you increase base and increase treble you increase power in IMD products (splatter). There is no way around that, even if the SSB filter is set to normal bandwidth.

73 Tom
Logged
N8FVJ
Member

Posts: 692




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: October 17, 2004, 05:28:12 AM »

No brainer- Kenwood TS-950SD with the DSP set to 3.0kHz bandwidth with a quality microphone.

Another 'player' is a Hallicrafters HT37 with the phase adjusted for correct balance & a studio quality microphone.

Only problem is the wide bandwidth can cause some issues under 'wall to wall' band conditions.
Logged
KB1LKR
Member

Posts: 1898




Ignore
« Reply #38 on: October 17, 2004, 10:07:33 AM »

Why does the mic quality matter for "only receiving...", which is what the original poster inquired about?
Logged
N8FVJ
Member

Posts: 692




Ignore
« Reply #39 on: October 17, 2004, 09:26:43 PM »

Reading in-between the lines, it is obvious the original post has interest in the unpopular wide SSB transmit as well as the receive side.

For just quality receive, I prefer tube type double conversion receivers.
Logged
NJ1K
Member

Posts: 329




Ignore
« Reply #40 on: October 18, 2004, 05:15:57 AM »

Am I missing something??  How is it obvious that he intends to transmit??  And if he DOES intend to transmit, so what??
Logged
K3AN
Member

Posts: 787




Ignore
« Reply #41 on: October 18, 2004, 10:54:49 AM »

I have noticed that many PSK-31 ops have joined their hi-fi SSB bretheren, sending wider-than-needed PSK signals by using clipping, overdriving, and other neat signal-broadening techniques. That means Morse ops are the only ones not yet experiencing the wideband renaissance. I don't think it's fair to leave them out in the cold.

Does anyone have a modern design for a transmitter that will emulate the signal of a 30 to 50 kHz wide spark transmitter, so the Morse ops can also transmit their code signals with higher fidelity?
Logged
NJ1K
Member

Posts: 329




Ignore
« Reply #42 on: October 18, 2004, 05:51:03 PM »

Why emulate a spark transmitter??  Just build a real spark transmitter and walla, you are there....
Logged
W8MW
Member

Posts: 326




Ignore
« Reply #43 on: October 19, 2004, 08:49:48 AM »

K3AN:  Quite a few CW ops are already transmitting wide signals. Those damned hi fi CW jerks. Many will become radio criminals when the ARRL petition puts a 200 Hz limit on occupied bandwidth.

The QRQ guys running 70+ WPM on the low end of 40 will need to move their 350 Hz wide signals up into the proposed 500 Hz band segments. Better yet, let them QRT. Today's ham radio doesn't need greedy bandwidth hogs pushing the envelope.  

To truly protect yourself, make sure your keying circuit rise/fall times match the one size fits all ARRL spec of 5ms ... and be careful not to send too fast. We'll all be better for it!

73 Mike
Logged
KC0KBH
Member

Posts: 176


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #44 on: October 21, 2004, 06:50:57 AM »

For recieving, use the better computer speakers for external speakers.  Mine are CTX brand, they sound great, I have surround sound, and can hear signals I can't with the internal speaker on my IC-765.
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!