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] 4 5 6 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What is the obsession with "great audio" when transmitting?  (Read 22082 times)
KC8OYE
Member

Posts: 297




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: February 03, 2011, 12:08:13 PM »

the problem is how do you do that? we are supposed to be self policing.. and when you offer advice to another ham, you are basically told to Fork off.. Most hams seem to regard letters from the O.O's as a joke.. so by the time you get to official complaints to the FCC it makes it look like we are unable to self police.. and that's not good.
at least.. that's about how it goes around here.
Logged
N0SYA
Member

Posts: 309




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: February 05, 2011, 08:45:49 AM »

I'm not so concerned about my outgoing bandwidth as I am my incoming on ssb. A 2.4KHz width is too narrow for me, I can more easily understand a weak voice sig with a wider bandwidth than with a narrow one. Going from 2.4 to 2.8 width makes a huge difference for me, and makes each voice much more distinct. With a 2.4 filter I can often not tell who is who  when I know each voice. But that is just me I suppose.
Logged

If you have a clumsy child, you make them wear a helmet. If you have death prone children, you keep a few clones of them in your lab.
W0BTU
Member

Posts: 1560


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #32 on: February 05, 2011, 12:20:59 PM »

It's been a long time since I operated SSB on 2 meters, but for me, the Collins 2.1 kHz mechanical filter was my favorite. However, sometimes if the transmitting station had wider audio (especially bassy audio), switching to the 2.4 kHz filter on the Drake R-4C was the clear winner.

And on HF with adjacent QRM, the 2.1 really shone! It often made the difference in being able to understand a station on your freq. or not.

Having said that, the filter skirts on today's radios are probably steeper, in which case the 2.4 could certainly be my favorite as well.
Logged

K0BG
Member

Posts: 9839


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #33 on: February 05, 2011, 01:16:33 PM »

Quite a few folks noted that amateur radio is a hobby, and indeed it is. However, it is a social hobby, with a lot of intermingling, due in part to our shared media. Unfortunately, the bandwidth of that media is limited below 30 MHz. When someone by accident, or worse on purpose, uses more bandwidth than they should, it affects us all. There are proposals to break up the bands in bandwidth segments, rather than by class. While that is a future option, it doesn't address the issue, here and now! At present, the best way is to let the offender know, with as much tact as we can. It doesn't always work, but I believe it is a step in the right direction.
Logged

KC8OYE
Member

Posts: 297




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: February 05, 2011, 03:42:16 PM »

I guess this isn't a problem that applies to 2m FM.. I'm sure bandwidth still is.. but since I use commercial radios, my audio is already significantly narrower then it would be with a ham radio so just about any thing I do to the audio would be for very little gain.

in fact, I spend more time correcting people for HORRIBLE audio then trying to be too perfect.  there's a lot of people around here that thing they have to have their lips glued to the mic to be heard.. which not only over-drives their audio way too much, but it interferes with their enunciation too.

something a ham much wiser then I taught me a long time ago when I was just getting started, was to talk across the mic.. not at it.  this stops a lot of your breathing noises, and that love popping you get on P's and also helps with hissing S's too.

Logged
KG4YMC
Member

Posts: 297




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: February 05, 2011, 07:07:33 PM »

Why not go the other  direction? They could try to sound like the old progressive rock fm stations djs. Like the "king bisquit flower hour or whatever. Had to have a base voice back then, or mabey they were  stoned or the listeners were also..lol... kg4ymc
Logged
K8AXW
Member

Posts: 3636




Ignore
« Reply #36 on: February 14, 2011, 09:03:01 PM »

I've waded through 3 pages of 'comments'  waiting for someone to explain this desire for good audio quality.  Everyone seems to dance around the reason(s).

Way back "in the day" audio quality was a sign of equipment quality.  Sure we're talking AM.... for that one here who wonders where the AM guys are.

Most quality transmitters used triode tubes and plate modulation which usually gave high quality or "broadcast quality" audio.  If you had a trashy (translated: something less than broadcast audio) your equipment, rather it be commercial or homebrew, was not considered "quality."  An example of this is comparing low level modulation to high level modulation.  (Look it up)  Especially homebrew.

Then along came SSB and the early SSB signals really sounded bad!  Communications dependability really jumped but there was that old desire to have good sounding audio as well. I've heard many descriptive comments about SSB signals from the AM guys but eventually everyone except the boat anchor guys on 80M switched to SSB. 

After this commercial equipment vendors started to and continues to this day, build gear that has good sounding audio.  Same with audio processors, rather they be microphones or equalization panels.  Good sounding audio is synonymous with quality.  For casual QSOs this is one of the goals.  When working DX then the game changes.  Microphones and other audio processing devices tailor the audio for reliable voice communications and nothing else.

I suppose this whole explanation can e compared to good CW ability.   Sure, you can make contacts using your left foot to key the transmitter but most strive for good sounding CW.


So there you have it boys and girls, one old man's opinion why many hams strive for good sounding signals.
Logged
W3LK
Member

Posts: 5644




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: February 15, 2011, 08:06:57 AM »

I've waded through 3 pages of 'comments'  waiting for someone to explain this desire for good audio quality.  Everyone seems to dance around the reason(s).

Way back "in the day" audio quality was a sign of equipment quality.  Sure we're talking AM.... for that one here who wonders where the AM guys are.

Most quality transmitters used triode tubes and plate modulation which usually gave high quality or "broadcast quality" audio.  If you had a trashy (translated: something less than broadcast audio) your equipment, rather it be commercial or homebrew, was not considered "quality."  An example of this is comparing low level modulation to high level modulation.  (Look it up)  Especially homebrew.

Then along came SSB and the early SSB signals really sounded bad!  Communications dependability really jumped but there was that old desire to have good sounding audio as well. I've heard many descriptive comments about SSB signals from the AM guys but eventually everyone except the boat anchor guys on 80M switched to SSB. 

After this commercial equipment vendors started to and continues to this day, build gear that has good sounding audio.  Same with audio processors, rather they be microphones or equalization panels.  Good sounding audio is synonymous with quality.  For casual QSOs this is one of the goals.  When working DX then the game changes.  Microphones and other audio processing devices tailor the audio for reliable voice communications and nothing else.

I suppose this whole explanation can e compared to good CW ability.   Sure, you can make contacts using your left foot to key the transmitter but most strive for good sounding CW.


So there you have it boys and girls, one old man's opinion why many hams strive for good sounding signals.

Well Said!!!!

FWIW, you do not need to exceed the 300 hz - 3000 hz audio bandwidth to have good sounding audio. It's all in the frequency response curve within that passband. Most crappy audio comes from using the wrong microphone that doesn't match the transmitter's response.
Logged

A smoking section in a restaurant makes as much sense as a peeing section in a swimming pool.
KC8OYE
Member

Posts: 297




Ignore
« Reply #38 on: February 15, 2011, 10:28:58 AM »

*shrug* I can't really answer.. as I don't have this affliction Smiley
Logged
STAYVERTICAL
Member

Posts: 854




Ignore
« Reply #39 on: February 22, 2011, 10:48:09 AM »

If the eyes are a window into the soul, then your voice is its chimney.
Lots of huffing, puffing and flames.

I propose a new class of licence extension - voice:  mellow, squeaky, whine, and sarcasm.

Each class could come with a bandwidth allowable, except for sarcasm which would get 0Hz.

73s
Logged
K8AXW
Member

Posts: 3636




Ignore
« Reply #40 on: February 22, 2011, 09:02:51 PM »

Not understanding isn't an "affliction."  An "affliction" is not understanding without seeking the answer.

Logged
KB1TXK
Member

Posts: 438


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #41 on: February 23, 2011, 08:37:27 AM »

I usually frequent a certain local repeater on 2m.

One day I decided to check out the busier state-wide network of repeaters and hopped on the local one. Within 5 seconds of my call going out I was welcomed by two friendly gentleman.  Thats when the third guy showed up and made sure to respond to every single one of my transmissions w/ a gripe about how my audio sounded "a bit off".  I thanked him for the report and explained that I was driving at the moment but would mess w/ some settings when I got home.  I would have gotten further talking to myself...as he continued to run-over those responding to me and continued to whine about my audio.

I haven't been back to that repeater, and I have no intention of ever doing so.

OCD-prone audiophiles really have no place in Ham radio. Thats just me thinking out loud...
Logged

K8AXW
Member

Posts: 3636




Ignore
« Reply #42 on: February 23, 2011, 09:29:12 PM »

TXK:  I'm really sorry to hear of your unfortunate experience on that repeater.  I agree with you 100%. 

However, you must understand that you will find this kind of person in any organization, hobby.... whatever.  When you encounter them, it can be stressful and even demoralizing.  In your case, you was welcomed by "two friendly gentlemen" but let one man turn you off.  Sometimes you need to push back.  Thank him for his opinion and then continue with your QSO with the two "gentlemen." 

I had a similar experience with a W2 many years ago when he would call CQ and say "I don't want to talk to any lids, kids or K8s."  A variation of this was, "I don't want to talk to any space cadets."  (Meaning guys using phonetics) As a young ham I found it very upsetting and un-ham like.

But I called the jerk and made him talk to me on more than one occasion.  I found out eventually he really didn't have anything to say to anyone..... he just wanted to be a jerk!  Sounds like you found another.

Move on and enjoy meeting and talking to the thousands of "gentlemen" out there!


Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 5855




Ignore
« Reply #43 on: February 27, 2011, 08:35:23 PM »

I've waded through 3 pages of 'comments'  waiting for someone to explain this desire for good audio quality.  Everyone seems to dance around the reason(s).

Way back "in the day" audio quality was a sign of equipment quality.  Sure we're talking AM.... for that one here who wonders where the AM guys are.

Most quality transmitters used triode tubes and plate modulation which usually gave high quality or "broadcast quality" audio.  If you had a trashy (translated: something less than broadcast audio) your equipment, rather it be commercial or homebrew, was not considered "quality."  An example of this is comparing low level modulation to high level modulation.  (Look it up)  Especially homebrew.

Then along came SSB and the early SSB signals really sounded bad!  Communications dependability really jumped but there was that old desire to have good sounding audio as well. I've heard many descriptive comments about SSB signals from the AM guys but eventually everyone except the boat anchor guys on 80M switched to SSB. 

After this commercial equipment vendors started to and continues to this day, build gear that has good sounding audio.  Same with audio processors, rather they be microphones or equalization panels.  Good sounding audio is synonymous with quality.  For casual QSOs this is one of the goals.  When working DX then the game changes.  Microphones and other audio processing devices tailor the audio for reliable voice communications and nothing else.

I suppose this whole explanation can e compared to good CW ability.   Sure, you can make contacts using your left foot to key the transmitter but most strive for good sounding CW.


So there you have it boys and girls, one old man's opinion why many hams strive for good sounding signals.

Which is a fancy way of saying what I said earlier.  The better the audio quality, the better sounding your signal is, and the better reports you get--along with the more ham operators won't mind staying in a conversation with you.
Logged
K4KYV
Member

Posts: 37




Ignore
« Reply #44 on: March 03, 2011, 12:25:41 PM »

There is nothing in the rules that says ham radio audio has to sound tinny, scratchy and irritating like what you hear coming out of the space shuttle. Anyone who takes pride in his station would value good sounding audio as much as he would a strong signal report.

Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next   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!