Ron
I too have gotten very favorable unsolicited (but not consistent)
compliments on the audio of the Scout and hand mic. I think that the
variables include band conditions, and the other guy's headphones , the
other guy's ears and personal taste.
I most often get very favorable reports during a ragchew on a clear
frequency on a quiet band. I think that I've gotten good audio reports when
my signal was S1 as well as S9 as long as there was little QRM/QRN .
I have heard a recording of my own audio and I consider it to be quite
natural and clean, no more than slightly bassy but kind of soft around the
edges if that makes any sense to you. The audio sounded quite pleasant but
lacked crispness. If I was listening to that audio on my speaker on a quiet
band I would be able to understand every word and would find the audio easy
to listen to.However it is not crisp or punchy.
I can easily imagine what happens when the background noise is S4 and my
signal is S 3 1/2 The pleasant soft edged audio would quickly disapear
into the mud. Audio with a bit more edge tends to be easier to pick out of
the mud. That little bit of edge can make the difference between making or
not making a contest contact.
I have had the experience of trying to contact contest stations which were
calling CQ. They come back and say "I can tell you are there old man but ur
S 3 and the niose floor is S4 so I can't copy you." Well ,yes, you can say
that those guys may not know how to properly use their receivers features
to tune QRN/M out but if my audio was a bit more crisp they might have been
able to copy.
Some of the guys in my local 10 meter net agree with my opinion of the mic
(very slightly bassy, natural, clean pleasant but not as crisp as some
mics) while a few say the mic is very bassy and hard to understand. They
prefer my other mic I think it's a Tran or Tram it's in my car right now).
I think the guys who don't like the Ten Tec mic either have poor bassy
speakers or they might have selective hearing loss. I want the guys with
poor speakers and selective hearing loss to be able to hear me.
Soyes, there really is nothing wrong with the Ten Tec mic. It's just that
other audio can be more easily picked out of the mud and other audio can be
more easily heard by guys with cheap speakers and selective hearing loss
<grin> In listening to Heil mics on the air I have found them to be just as
clean and natural as the TT hand mic but they seem to have a bit more
*sparkle and stand out a bit better.
73
Bob KB1CIW
At 08:59 AM 8/19/02 -0600, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>I have been following the thread with interest and after reading your last
>posting on your operating conditions feel compelled to comment.
>
>In using the Scout and ARGO 556 for several years, I am somewhat puzzled by
>your desire to attempt to improve the audio on those
>specific rigs. With the stock TT hand mic, I have consistently gotten very
>favorable and unsolicited compliments on the audio while operating from a
>base setup as well as mobile. Let me add that most of my operating is QRP,
>so even more impressive that the operator on the other end of the QSO would
>comment on the audio. They tell me the signal strength is close to zero but
>the audio is 100 percent copy.
>
>I suspect this means that the equipment produces very good communication
>type audio that is easily understood on the RX end. This audio may not
>produce the sound you are looking for, however. My intent is to communicate
>and have a nice clean signal with understandable audio which may be much
>different than a lot of signals I hear that are re-manufactured with extra
>equipment. I would agree that many who attempt to "tweak" their rigs audio
>are not doing them selves any favors.
>
>One of the really neat things about Ham Radio is the many areas of interest
>including retooling audio and I applaud you in pursuing that desire.
>
>Good luck on making the Scout sound like you want.
>
>73 Ron KI0II
>
>Attachment Converted: "C:\PIPEPLUS\DOWNLOAD\Scout Audio"
>
|