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

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Two questions on Yaesu MD-200 microphone.  (Read 5503 times)
W9KDX
Member

Posts: 778




Ignore
« on: February 22, 2012, 01:16:45 PM »

Numerous reports say that this mike needs to have the switch hidden in the bottom reset to remove the bass, but these are a few years old.  Does anyone know if this mike still comes from the factory set for too much bass?

Also, this and many other high end microphones offer adjustments for the frequency response.  At the same time, they are touted for high end transcievers with copious frequency adjustment.

This leads me to wonder why you would make a correction on the mike if the radio has more options.  It also seems that a high end mike with adjustments promoted for a high end reciever is redundant unless the is something better about correcting on the mike as opposed to the radio.  And I don't see a lot of $400 mikes on $700 radios.

So which way makes the most sense?

Thanks
Logged

Sam
W9KDX
VA7CPC
Member

Posts: 2806




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2012, 06:09:35 PM »

Mic choice is highly personal.  You can spend as much as you want on a mic and outboard audio gear to make it sound "just right".   
 
I think your second question is something like:

. . . If I have a rig with TX equalization controls, do I need a microphone that also has EQ controls?

and the short answer is:

. . . .  Probably not.

I've been following mic reviews on this site, and, as far as I can see, a Heil PR-781 (about $170) works well on just about any ham rig it's plugged into.   It looks like a PR-40, and has had its low-end response cut off to match ham SSB requirements.  If you want more "presence boost", or less bass, than that mic delivers, just dial it in with the TX EQ.  The 3-band parametric EQ on the FT-950 (to pick one example of a current rig) is way more flexible than anything built into a ham microphone.

I doubt that the MD-200 would sound better.   But somebody else may disagree, having given up on the PR-781 and chosen the MD-200 instead.

.       Charles

PS -- with a compromised antenna, and an FT-450, my own mic is an inexpensive Audio-Technica "dynamic vocal mic", and my EQ setting is almost always "low cut, high boost".  I need all the help I can get!

Logged
KA4POL
Member

Posts: 2409




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2012, 09:54:54 PM »

It may be a religion for some. My view is: take the mic that comes with the radio. You can, in most times, not go with the audio reports you receive. We are not in high fidelity we require a readable modulation. This makes the difference between reading a weak signal and not being able to read it.
Logged
WI4P
Member

Posts: 73




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: February 23, 2012, 09:43:51 AM »

If you are looking for that broadcast station sound the MD-200 might be the way to go.  I get good reports using the stock hand mike with my FT-450 but just added an MD-100a8x for the convenience it offers.  No menu's to learn, locking push to talk and frequency scrolling.  Great audio reports as well.
Logged
W9KDX
Member

Posts: 778




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: February 23, 2012, 02:24:25 PM »

I am not looking for input on the MD-200 specifically, other than the switch question, still out there.

What I would like to know is whether there is a difference between adjusting the sound of the mike, any mike, on the mike or on the radio.
Logged

Sam
W9KDX
W8MW
Member

Posts: 343




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: February 23, 2012, 05:14:37 PM »

What I would like to know is whether there is a difference between adjusting the sound of the mike, any mike, on the mike or on the radio.

Yes there is a difference.  A mic with switches to boost or cut frequency response is giving you a predetermined choice (somebody already decided how much to cut or boost and at what frequencies).  But what if that one size fits all approach isn't what you're looking for?  An equalizer either outboard or built into the radio turns the decision over to you. You get many more fine-tuning options that way.

73, Mike
« Last Edit: February 23, 2012, 05:17:02 PM by W8MW » Logged
VA7CPC
Member

Posts: 2806




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2012, 01:31:00 AM »

Here's another way to approach the question:

. . . What is "professional practice" ?

If you look at high-end microphones for recording and broadcast use:

. . . Many have switchable high-pass filters (to reduce handling noise and floor noise) cutting frequency below 70 Hz or so.

. . . Many have -10db or -20db pads, for handling really high sound levels (cymbals, trumpets, etc) without
. . . overloading the mic preamp.

But they usually _don't_ come with "tone controls" built in.  Controlling the low/mid/high balance of the sound is the job of equalizers, _not_ switches on the microphone.

.         charles


Logged
W9KDX
Member

Posts: 778




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2012, 09:51:08 AM »

Thanks.  So it looks like they both sound the same if set the same, but the radio offers a wider range of setting.  So, the adjustments on the mike would appear to be a waste of money, unless used on a very basic or old radio.  That makes no sense, which is why I asked.

BTW, as no one had the answer, I'll post it for anyone else with the same question.

Inside the base of the mike, on the back of the circuit board is an A/B switch which comes from the factory set for"A".  As set, this gives the mike a significant bass bias.  When switched to "B", it reduces that bass push, although I still needed to make additional adjustments to get the bass closer to my preferences.  The in mike adjustment dial needed to be set to 7 o'clock and I needed to roll off the bass in the receiver equalizer as well.

A number of reviews mention that the mention that the switch comes from the factory set to "B" and should be switched to "A" to cut the bass.  To my untrained ears, the reverse seemed to be true.  Maybe someday, Yaesu will give in and tell us what is going on.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2012, 11:38:00 AM by KD0PLD » Logged

Sam
W9KDX
W9KDX
Member

Posts: 778




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: March 01, 2012, 06:39:43 PM »

Just received a reply from Yaesu on the lo-cut switch.  My impression was correct.  The switch is set to the right "B" to cut the base and left "A" to enhance.
Logged

Sam
W9KDX
Pages: [1]   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!