TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] In praise of older technology

To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] In praise of older technology
From: Richards <jrichards@k8jhr.com>
Reply-to: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 18:40:37 -0500
List-post: <tentec@contesting.com">mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
Well said, Bob.

Last summer, on a Brand X discussion forum, we discussed what is the "best" microphone and what is the best EQ setting. I suggested that, because we only use +/- 2700 Hz audio and RF bandwidth - pretty much any decent microphone costing $15 or more SHOULD be linear across that narrow spectrum, and I made recordings of several microphones bearing widely different price tags to prove it. No one has correctly identified the $15 Samson RS10 from the $150 Heil PR-20 or even from the $99 Sennheiser e835, and several others by RadioShack, Shure, and the real kicker in the bunch... a $1 computer mic I purchased on eBay.

I dared to suggest audiophiles use EQ to "fix" or compensate for uneven room acoustics ... but oddly enough audiophiles often employ pre-amps and power amps lacking any bass or treble or EQ controls at all - instead they seek uncolored input, and uncolored output, using EQ sparingly or not at all to compensate for uneven room acoustics. So, on that logic, maybe we should use FLAT EQ on the transmit audio, on the theory of what goes in uncolored and natural, might come out uncolored and more natural than if we had messed with it. After all, most decent microphones are linear across the 200- 2700 Hz +/- range - if we want to sound natural, why color it with phoney EQ settings ?

I am sure there is some fallacy lurking in the weeds, but this seems logical to me. Garbage in... garbage out... Natural, simple audio in... ok you get the picture.

So I keep it simple, I use reasonably good, but not overly expensive microphones, and avoid excessive EQ coloration (occasionally I add a slight boost to the mid range frequencies to be more punchy in a crowd... but not otherwise.)

Am I missing something?

--------------------------------------  K8JHR  --------------



On 2/24/2014 3:35 PM, Bob McGraw - K4TAX wrote:
Yep and likely he had a bunch of external processing and EQ equipment as
well.

I hate to say it folks but we are using a communication audio range
which is typically comprising a frequency response between 200 Hz to
2500 Hz out of the entire audio spectrum   That range is defined by the
filter, be it hardware or DSP, that is part of the SSB generator.

Trying to cram wide band audio through a filter of this bandwidth is
like trying to push a bumble bee through a drinking straw.  Nothing nice
is going to come out the other end.  Just like I tell the kid in the
band, it's easy to be loud, just buy another amp and crank it to the
max.  Now being good, well that takes skill, knowledge and talent.

Now lets try to get the best quality out of the 200 Hz to 2500 Hz
spectrum of audio that's available.  It is a lot more of a challenge
than buying and using some external processing and EQ and broadcast type
mikes.

_________________________________




ll
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>