[Elecraft] DESK MICROPHONES FOR K3

[Ray Sills]

I have to agree with Phil on this.  I am by no means a crackerjack CW  
operator.  But, I find with my KX3, that most of the time I operate CW.
It just gives me more "bang for the buck" when running 5 watts with my  
KX3.  I have the MH3 mic, and have used it now and then.  In the past  
(QRO days) I did more voice operating.

But, for me, the goal here is to have intelligible audio, and there is  
little value in transmitting any frequencies lower than 200 Hz.   
You're better off generating RF that excludes those "low"  
frequencies.  Still, it is handy to have an on-board equalizer, so  
that you can make some tweaks to the audio response -for your  
individual voice-.

I used to work in broadcasting, both radio and television, so I  
understand that it's desirable for broadcast media to have a "full  
bandwidth" audio sound.  But, the fact is, that even with  
broadcasting, we would make individual adjustments -for each person-  
who was using a mic, so as to "make them sound good".. which was and  
still is a personal decision made by the audio operator.  The good  
audio operators, know how to adjust their audio mixing consoles to  
optimize the sound, and how it "sits" in the mix.  It's more an art,  
than a science.  And, one of the concerns when adjusting things was  
"how would this audio sound on a TV or radio with a small speaker".   
Those types of operators are referred to as having "golden ears",  
since they made the audio sound good on tiny speakers, as well as high  
quality audiophile speakers.

So, I also prefer broadcast audio for broadcasting, and communications  
audio for communicating.

73 de Ray
K2ULR
KX3 #211


On Jul 9, 2014, at 1:56 PM, Phil Hystad wrote:

> Caveat:  I admit to being 90 percent and better CW only and it has  
> probably
> been a year or more since I have had anything like a ragchew on SSB  
> and even
> longer in ( > 3 years?? ) since I have called CQ on SSB.
>
> But, I find that the simple hand mic, the Elecraft HM2, works very  
> nicely.  And,
> I have been given good reports on audio.
>
> I know it is not a desk mic but I am thankful to have gotten rid of  
> the desk mic
> I had (the Icom SM20, I think that is the model number) when I sold  
> my Icom
> equipment.  The desk mic took up too much room on the desk and it  
> was awkward
> to squirt it out of the way when I did not need it which was most of  
> the time.  In
> contrast, the hand mic is easy to move out of the way.
>
> But, I am still puzzled by the interest in high-quality broadcast  
> type audio.  To me,
> as long as the audio is clear, no RF on the signal, not overdriven,  
> and so on, I am
> fine with it.  Even if the other guy is a little off frequency I am  
> OK as long as I can
> understand them and they can understand me.
>
> OK, again, I admit, I am mostly CW so my comments may not pile up  
> much, even
> a hill of beans (black beans preferred) -- but I just had to ask  
> this rhetorical question
> as to why broadcast style audio is important in a SSB signal.
>
> 73, phil, K7PEH
>