Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Questionable (Bad) Audio  (Read 637 times)

N4MU

  • Member
  • Posts: 344
Questionable (Bad) Audio
« on: January 29, 2023, 05:58:12 AM »

Has anyone else noticed the increasing appearance of really bad audio? I use CW about 99% of the time but have been listening to some SSB nets and QSOs lately and am amazed by the poor quality of so many stations. There is RF ingress, popping, crackling, over-driving (frequently), super-wide bandwidth and just a multitude of "errors" that no one seems to care about or that others never mention to the offender (maybe they just don't hear it or know it's bad). What with 8 band EQs, processors, lousy cables and/or connectors and ground loops it's a wonder they can be heard at all. Seems like because that $300 (or more) microphone was purchased everything will be great! Just an observation but I am curious. Am I being too "perfectionist" or is this to be expected...and accepted? It smacks of really poor station construction and/or thoughtless (perhaps clueless) operators. What's your "take"? Thanks.
Logged

N7LRG

  • Member
  • Posts: 135
Re: Questionable (Bad) Audio
« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2023, 06:28:59 AM »

Yes I've heard that. I was trying to help a guy on 10m, asked him what his ALC looked like and he asked me what that was.....then asked him what his mic gain was set to. Reply was "All the way up". I got him sorted. There are operators that are in the AKTTR (all knobs to the right) club.
Logged

AA7IS

  • Posts: 62
    • HomeURL
Re: Questionable (Bad) Audio
« Reply #2 on: January 29, 2023, 06:30:00 AM »

I'm constantly amazed at all the RF feedback that folks can't identify, it's as if hams have forgotten what RF feedback sounds like on SSB, if you want an example just go listen to all the radiating dummy loads on HF.
Then to help out the confusion they slap a bunch of broadcaster wanna be rookie audio mangling  devices, Echo mics and roger beeps are right around the corner.
Logged

W0CKI

  • Member
  • Posts: 637
Re: Questionable (Bad) Audio
« Reply #3 on: January 29, 2023, 07:28:47 AM »

And sadly, many experienced hams just blast away during any contest event. They should know better.
Gary W0CKI
Logged

AE0Q

  • Member
  • Posts: 414
    • AE0Q Amateur Radio
Re: Questionable (Bad) Audio
« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2023, 08:18:22 AM »

I'm constantly amazed at all the RF feedback that folks can't identify, it's as if hams have forgotten what RF feedback sounds like on SSB,

I'm sure the proliferation of the EFHW antenna, mounted close to the house with little or no choking on the coax, has contributed to this...
Logged
NSGA Edzell 1974-77  CTM2  GM5BKC : NSGA Rota 1972-74   ZB2WZ, SV0WY
https://radioandtravels.blogspot.com/
http://www.qsl.net/ae0q/

K6BRN

  • Member
  • Posts: 2231
Re: Questionable (Bad) Audio
« Reply #5 on: January 29, 2023, 08:22:26 AM »

There are knobs?  I have to look... :)

Setting up SSB audio is an iterative process, especially on a new and different radio.  I recently went from an FTDX-3000 to FTDX-101MP.  While some audio controls LOOK similar, AMC is totally different and other audio processing behaves in subtlely diffeent ways.  Tricky bugger. 

And what comprises "good" is often subjective.  In general, I divide preferences into three major groups, all of which seem to disagree on what makes "good audio":

1.  Hard core HF DXers/contsters who prefer emphasis somewhere in the 800-1.8 KHz range and rapid rolloff of the lows.  In other works, put the most power into the higher voice frequencies that cut through noise and interference and as little as possible into bass content.  Makes sense.  But this can result in VERY harsh audio that is difficult to listen to.  And of course, quite a few very competitive operators really don't care how obnoxious they sound as long as they're noticed and get through.  That's the whole point, right?

2.  HF Rag chewers who desire less painful, smooth audio and reduced highs (noise) and pump in a little bass and try and sound "natural".  A difficult thing to do on limited bandwidth SSB, especially at night (a popular time) with selective fading/frequency distortion - works better with "local"chats but then FM repeaters have much better audio and are rock solid.

3.  The ESSB group with fine mics and external equalizers, noise gates, etc. with "4 KHz+" wide signals.  Problem is, this often spreads out much wider, partly due to "golden screwdriver" radio mods  to reach 4K and partly due to other audio settings. Selective fading messes this up, too.  But then, if you've been an SWL, you're probably used to it.  No AM Sync Detector on SSB, though.  Unless you're on AM!

And in every case, too much mic gain and/or compression may sound just fine in a rigs "monitor" mode, but splatter in reality. ("All knobs to the Right" syndrome)

Plus - we never sound to ourselves as we sound to each other due to bone conduction in our own audio system.  The simple fact that we all have different hearing profiles and deficits (especially as we age), which makes things even more difficult.

It really takes time with some other local ham buddies to get a first cut, then more time to fine tune audio after a number of QSOs, selectively gathering feedback (so to speak!).

Just my 2 cents.

Brian - K6BERN
Logged

K6BRN

  • Member
  • Posts: 2231
Re: Questionable (Bad) Audio
« Reply #6 on: January 29, 2023, 08:32:57 AM »

I'm constantly amazed at all the RF feedback that folks can't identify, it's as if hams have forgotten what RF feedback sounds like on SSB,

I'm sure the proliferation of the EFHW antenna, mounted close to the house with little or no choking on the coax, has contributed to this...

It's not about end-feds. It's about having adequate space and basic station configuration do/don't knowledge.  In a compressed space, experimentation is always required, in my experience.

ANY antenna located too close to the operating station will cause RFI/EMI.  I feel for apartment/condo dwellers whose only choice is an internal wire or loop antenna.  Painful.  Having room for a large antenna and antenna separation is nice.  But a luxury for many.

I did manage to put in an attic antenna recently at one condo QTH - a resonant EFHW, that works reasonably well in there, even when running modest QRO.  Got lucky on that one.  But also put CMCs on both ends of the feedline and laid out the antenna as an inclined V, against the inside of a high peaked roof (not touching), keeping the current peaks in the antenna as far away from wiring as possible.  And there is no foil insultation in the attic.  The RF safety survey worked out as well.  Sometimes you get lucky.

Brian - K6BRN
Logged

AA7IS

  • Posts: 62
    • HomeURL
Re: Questionable (Bad) Audio
« Reply #7 on: January 29, 2023, 08:49:12 AM »

It's about obtaining a license to transmit with no knowledge of radio electronics.
Ham radio has changed and I think it's stupid to expect any modern ham to know anything about electronics or rf energy or propagation.
None of this is a requirement nor expected these days.
We in are the age of appliance operators and semi educated (dangerous) newbies. :-)
Learn to live with it I guess!
NOW AUDIO IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THING!
The newbies will hook up a ten band audio equalizer and noise gates and all sorts of HI FI equipment to a HF SSB radio and pretend to be Art Bell!
« Last Edit: January 29, 2023, 08:52:03 AM by AA7IS »
Logged

N2SR

  • Member
  • Posts: 1794
Re: Questionable (Bad) Audio
« Reply #8 on: January 29, 2023, 09:54:57 AM »


1.  Hard core HF DXers/contsters who prefer emphasis somewhere in the 800-1.8 KHz range and rapid rolloff of the lows.  In other works, put the most power into the higher voice frequencies that cut through noise and interference and as little as possible into bass content.  Makes sense.  But this can result in VERY harsh audio that is difficult to listen to.  And of course, quite a few very competitive operators really don't care how obnoxious they sound as long as they're noticed and get through.  That's the whole point, right?

Brian - K6BERN

There will always be the guys that have crappy audio. 

Ideally you want audio that yes, "gets through" but is not obnoxious.  Most contesters actually do care about their audio because when they look at their LCR, they see the errors that other stations have made copying their call. 

Other times it is getting through the pileup.  Being loud does not mean you get through, especially if your audio is overmodulated or distorted. 

I sold my Heil boom mic long ago and use a far cheaper boom mic that gets me "great audio" reports, and gets me quickly though the pileups.
Logged
Elect a clown.  Expect a circus.

K0UA

  • Member
  • Posts: 9589
Re: Questionable (Bad) Audio
« Reply #9 on: January 29, 2023, 10:28:10 AM »

I am amazed by the amount of totally unsolicited excellent  audio reports I get with my 7300's and my 7610 radios with my $20 Plantronics computer headset and my Mercury IIIs for an amplifier. I must be doing something right.
Logged
73  James K0UA

AE0Q

  • Member
  • Posts: 414
    • AE0Q Amateur Radio
Re: Questionable (Bad) Audio
« Reply #10 on: January 29, 2023, 11:30:07 AM »

I'm sure the proliferation of the EFHW antenna, mounted close to the house with little or no choking on the coax, has contributed to this...

It's not about end-feds. It's about having adequate space and basic station configuration do/don't knowledge.  In a compressed space, experimentation is always required, in my experience.

ANY antenna located too close to the operating station will cause RFI/EMI.

OK, my comment was too subtle.  My point was actually about the EFHW becoming popular, an easy antenna to put up with NO antenna experience and NO reading about the parameters needed to consider to use antennas correctly and effectively.
Logged
NSGA Edzell 1974-77  CTM2  GM5BKC : NSGA Rota 1972-74   ZB2WZ, SV0WY
https://radioandtravels.blogspot.com/
http://www.qsl.net/ae0q/

K5TED

  • Member
  • Posts: 294
Re: Questionable (Bad) Audio
« Reply #11 on: January 29, 2023, 12:53:01 PM »

"I've got plenty of SWR on the meter, but I can't make contacts. What's the problem?"
Logged

K4KYV

  • Member
  • Posts: 130
Re: Questionable (Bad) Audio
« Reply #12 on: January 29, 2023, 01:01:46 PM »

Has anyone else noticed the increasing appearance of really bad audio?
Isn't ham radio audio supposed to sound tinny, scratchy and distorted? For may years amateurs who attempted to make their audio sound good were derided by other hams. "Communication quality" and getting the message through was all that was supposed to matter.  Isn't SSB and 'good sounding audio' an oxymoron?

As for  the EFHW, kind of like the proliferation of the myth that "half-wavelength verticals don't need ground radials".

Logged

KC6RWI

  • Member
  • Posts: 901
Re: Questionable (Bad) Audio
« Reply #13 on: January 29, 2023, 02:57:58 PM »

I had one uninterested person get in earshot of ssb audio, I can't hear a word they are saying, its too scratchy. I said nothing but my mind said you are not even trying.
Logged

WA3SKN

  • Member
  • Posts: 8126
Re: Questionable (Bad) Audio
« Reply #14 on: January 30, 2023, 08:17:51 AM »

I find it curious how few amateurs know how to listen to their own audio, so they would KNOW how their audio sounds, and not need to get subjective audio reports from others.

-Mike.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up