[Elecraft] [K3] K3 Audio Response - Version 3.33 Firmware

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

> It's "natural" if all of your friends are parrots.

It is far from a "parrot" and light years ahead of the muddy 
base rumble from the overly boosted, compressed and clipped 
50-150 Hz  that passes for "audiophile" product these days. 

> This is ridiculous.  No one here is advocating 20Hz-20Khz as 
> a regular option on the ham bands. 

Even 20 Hz to 5 KHz is absurd on the amateur bands.  More 
than 90% of all transceivers have IF filters that on their 
best days will pass 3 KHz ... most are less than that.  To 
transmit a signal wider than 2.8 KHz (200 to 3200 or 150 to 
3150 Hz) to 3.2 KHz (150 Hz to 3350 Hz) anywhere other than 
on 10 Meters for a local QSO is an absolute exercise in ego 
self-gratification and intentional QRM to other users of 
the band.  

Like K9YC, I have more than  little professional familiarity 
with "good" audio.  I spent my entire professional career in 
in the broadcast and recording industries and started out 
doing more than enough live recordings, talk shows, and live 
event audio to know what constitutes "good" and "excellent" 
audio for all purposes.  More importantly, I know the difference 
between audio designed to go to a digital recording media and 
audio that needs to work through a band limited channel.  
 
> So why is there so much hard core insistence than we should 
> have bad audio ALL of the time.

Nobody is insisting that we should have band audio, ever - but 
both Jim and I are saying that wide bandwidth and "good audio" 
are NOT the same.  With the proper choice of passband, 
equalization, and judicious use of clipping/compression, one 
can have good audio in a reasonable bandwidth ... AM (5-7 KHz) 
or FM (12-15 KHz) broadcast audio bandwidths are not necessary 
or appropriate for amateur use at HF. 
  



> -----Original Message-----
> From: elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net 
> [mailto:elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Grant Youngman
> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 5:58 PM
> To: Elecraft List
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] [K3] K3 Audio Response - Version 3.33 Firmware
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 21, 2009, at 4:14 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
> >
> > A clean "square sided" audio response that passes 150-200 Hz to 
> > 2800-3000 Hz (2.8 KHz bandwidth) with a "notch" between 750 
> and 1100 
> > Hz and a response that rises at 3 - 6 dB per octave between 
> 1000 and 
> > 3000 Hz is a thing of joy to hear.
> >
> > Such a response is very efficient use of bandwidth, is
> > easy to understand but not "harsh" and almost "natural" sounding.  
> > Those who boost bass below 150-200 Hz do nothing but make 
> their audio 
> > "muddy" - particularly if the bass boost is followed by any 
> > compression/clipping - and difficult to tune.
> 
> 
> It's "natural" if all of your friends are parrots.
> 
> This is ridiculous.  No one here is advocating 20Hz-20Khz as 
> a regular  
> option on the ham bands.  (Well, you would if you really wanted to  
> sound like YOU instead of a parrot, but that's another 
> issue).  There  
> is nothing "natural" sounding about what you propose.  Unless 
> you have  
> really bad hearing, or or just so used to thinking that 
> nothing sounds  
> better than a KWM-2 that anything else doesn't work.
> 
> All of this "efficiency" stuff is smokescreen.  You sound 
> like a human  
> being or you don't.  You can understand (out of context) what 
> the guy  
> on the other end is saying or not.
> 
> No one here is advocating using 20Hz to 20Khz transmit bandwidth in  
> the context of "good amateur practice. So why is there so much hard  
> core insistence than we should have bad audio ALL of the time.
> 
> Grant/NQ5T
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html