Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Questionable (Bad) Audio  (Read 638 times)

K6BRN

  • Member
  • Posts: 2231
Re: Questionable (Bad) Audio
« Reply #15 on: January 30, 2023, 09:13:14 AM »

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.

Glenn (AE0Q):

It's called "Amateur Radio" for a reason and is open to anybody for the same reason.  While some like to make this hobby a "service" (MARS, covering events, community EMCOM), it's realy a hobby that can sometimes be useful.  The good news is that those that lack skills can learn them from others in the community - a GOOD thing.  So why look down on them?  Teach them instead - because the basics of the hobby are - well - really basic, but also a little esoteric - not generally taught in any school.

Otherwise, we could require every ham to have an applicable engineering degree (EE, SE, NO CEs, technicians or software designers, of course) from a real, accredited university and a PE certificate.  THAT would certainly nail down the tech basics.  AND thin out the ranks (by about 90%).  But they'd STILL need to learn how to operate.  And the nuances of antennas at HF are quite different from microwave - the most popular wireless comms medium.  Not to mention operating conventions.

So with all due respect - I disagree.

BTW, you've also subtly said that resonant EFHW wire antenna work too well.  And perhaps they do.  (How many tools are abandoned for working "too well"?) But I like flexibility and convienience.  Just a personal preference.

"Hey, Fred - grab me a screwdriver, I've gotta take out this rusty fastener.  NO! Not THAT screwdriver!  It works TOO well!  No challenge.  Get me the one I made myself with the rounded tip so I can strip out the screw slot.  Then I can use my POWER DRILL to get the scew out, and THAT's more fun!"

Think about it.

Brian - K6BRN

Logged

K6BRN

  • Member
  • Posts: 2231
Re: Questionable (Bad) Audio
« Reply #16 on: January 30, 2023, 09:26:59 AM »

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?

You're right, particularly on SSB DX.  We only have a narrow window of voice frequencies to optimize (about 2.7 KHz, 3.7 KHz is you push it - ESSB) and then distortion from atmospheric effects can play merry h**l with that, anyway.

SSB is not AM.  It's not FM.  SSB is about the worst possible mode for operators wanting to sound like commercial broadcast stations.  Funny thing is - how many FM operators do you know with 150 lbs of equalizers, compressors, etc. in front of the radio?  Not many, I'll bet.

Brian - K6BRN
Logged

K8AXW

  • Posts: 7391
    • HomeURL
Re: Questionable (Bad) Audio
« Reply #17 on: January 30, 2023, 09:30:58 AM »

BRN -Brian:  VERY well said! 

It's amazing what happens to some people when they acquire a little knowledge.
Logged
A Pessimist is Never Disappointed!

K6BRN

  • Member
  • Posts: 2231
Re: Questionable (Bad) Audio
« Reply #18 on: January 30, 2023, 09:34:41 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.

Mike (WA3SKN):

I use a Kenwood R-1000 outboard receiver (12 KHz RX filter), stub antenna and earphones to get myself in the ballpark, especially with a new radio.  But even then, I sound different to myself due to bone conduction.  So it's pretty important to have other nearby operators give feedback.  However, every operator has they're own audio preferences and so the feedback requires some "interpretation".

Brian - K6BRN

Logged

WB8VLC

  • Member
  • Posts: 1155
Re: Questionable (Bad) Audio
« Reply #19 on: January 30, 2023, 10:33:42 AM »

[

You're right, particularly on SSB DX.  We only have a narrow window of voice frequencies to optimize (about 2.7 KHz, 3.7 KHz is you push it - ESSB) and then distortion from atmospheric effects can play merry h**l with that, anyway.

SSB is not AM.  It's not FM.  SSB is about the worst possible mode for operators wanting to sound like commercial broadcast stations.  Funny thing is - how many FM operators do you know with 150 lbs of equalizers, compressors, etc. in front of the radio?  Not many, I'll bet.

Brian - K6BRN
[/quote]

Good point Brian but another problem now popping up pertaining to FM which I ran into yesterday is the clueless hams with newer radios who don't know how to set up their RX audio passband for proper FM operation.

  I run a 220MHz to 29 MHz remote base system in NW Oregon and yesterday a ham in New Hampshire running a flex 6500 complained about my distortion in his RX during my transmit, apparently his flex receiver runs flat audio from DC to 3 KHz and his flex detected my 107 hz CTCSS tone that I put out.

   I run a 107 hz CTCSS output tone on the transmit to trigger some other nearby 10 FM remote receivers for diversity use and this guy had no idea as to how to set his receive audio on the flex to attenuate frequencies below 300 hz and as a result he was complaining about my distorted TX audio.

 I mentioned that he should probably adjust his RX audio to cutoff frequencies in the subaudible range under 300 hz so that my CTCSS noise would go away and just to show him what I was talking about I shut the CTCSS tone off and sure enough he reported great clear audio but still he had no idea how to set up his receive nor his transmit audio on FM for that matter because  his TX dev was around 1.5 K and when I asked him about his low TX dev he had no idea as to how to set it with his flex radio.

So now on HF FM I miss the days when most users were running surplus Moto or GE equipment that always sounded great.
Logged

N4MU

  • Member
  • Posts: 344
Re: Questionable (Bad) Audio
« Reply #20 on: January 30, 2023, 02:11:13 PM »

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

I believe the proper pronounciation is: SUWORS, as in "How meny suwors does ya got?"
BTW, Interesting comments and especially about SSB, etc. On the plus side, I haven't heard Donald Duck in ages so we muct be making progress. de OP
Logged

W4JFA

  • Posts: 133
    • HomeURL
Re: Questionable (Bad) Audio
« Reply #21 on: February 23, 2023, 11:03:40 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.
AKTTR! Great! ROFLMFAO!
Logged

NA4M

  • Member
  • Posts: 212
Re: Questionable (Bad) Audio
« Reply #22 on: February 26, 2023, 08:32:21 AM »


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.

4 khz+ ??  I wish. There's at least one ESSB station on the low end of 75m that is typically 7-8 khz wide as seen on my rig's panadapter.   Totally uncalled for SSB transmit bandwidth.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up