[Icom] Icom 756-Pro II audio/mic input alternatives

Sun, 02 Jun 2002 17:46:47 -0700

I guess, if that is what they want to do, it is OK.  I remember long time 
ago, the Side winders or Dunald Duck stations were the ones being laughed 
at.  So what is the hobby about.?

I become a little upset when people on AM will not talk to people on SB and 
also say git t your part of the band.  (??)  I also am up set when SB want 
to sound like FM.  Lets just use what what was for and enjoy ourselves It 
is difficult enough to enlist new hams as it is let alone have discention 
in the ranks.

Just my little thought for the day.

Chris opr VE7HCB

At 05:52 PM 2002-06-02 -0400, you wrote:
>Andy....
>Ya' gotta look around.
>You are very wrong on the statement of hams not wanting to sound like
>broadcast stations.
>Whew!... There are some clowns that even call their shacks "studio 1, studio
>2 etc"
>They make for loads of humorous listening fun!!
>...Dave
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Andy Wallace" <[email protected]>
>To: <[email protected]>
>Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 4:50 PM
>Subject: Re: [Icom] Icom 756-Pro II audio/mic input alternatives
>
>
> > Hi Marty
> >
> > I think you and Adam may be talking apples and oranges. I am also
>interested
> > in high end audio and fully appreciate the musicality inherent in the low
> > bass (my subwoofer and its built-in amp would pay for a pretty good radio
> > receiver). But when I am trying to break through an HF pile-up to get some
> > rare DX, I want to get maximum "bang for the buck" out of my ham system,
> > which means cutting the highs and the lows as recommended by Bob Heil and
> > implemented by him in his microphone products and by Icom in the 756 Pro
> > circuits if desired.
> >
> > Bob Heil, incidentally, is also a professional musician who has recorded
> > organ CD's (lots and lots of bass!!) and was one of the first pioneering
> > experts in rock concert amplification--incredible amounts of bass--ear
> > splitting! The "mellow full AM sound" may be fun to play with on HF SSB,
>but
> > efficient it is not. You might even argue that the attempts at "mellow
> > sound" on SSB violate the FCC regulations' restraints against using "any
> > more power on HF than is necessary to establish readable communications"
> > :-) I think relatively few hams are interested in sounding like a
>broadcast
> > station as opposed to putting out the most efficient signal possible. It
>is
> > certainly a legitimate endeavor, however, if that is your interest and you
> > can resist the temptation to use "California kilowatts" like many do,
> > splattering all over the band.
> >
> > Andy  K5VM
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "HFSSB" <[email protected]>
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 2:08 PM
> > Subject: RE: [Icom] Icom 756-Pro II audio/mic input alternatives
> >
> >
> > >
> > > It's unusual to find fault with Adam's outstanding contributions to our
> > hobby
> > > but re-reading Adam's comment here I see that the error is in the latter
> > part of
> > > this statement, "... to cut off low-frequency components of the
>microphone
> > > output (below 250~300 Hz). These components contribute virtually nothing
> > to
> > > articulation at the receiver,..."
> > >
> > > If we could take everything out of normal conversation below 250-300 Hz
>we
> > would
> > > quickly miss the richest sounding component of the human voice, the
>bass.
> > By
> > > putting this lower audio component back into the SSB signal we are
>adding
> > the
> > > fullness in the human voice giving it a more "life-like" natural sound.
> > Adam's
> > > statement is then only true if you receive with filters cutting off
>these
> > lower
> > > frequencies.  Today however, there is tremendous interest in SSB audio
> > > improvement and you have Hams listening on rigs with filters opened up
> > from 0 Hz
> > > to 3-4k, even 6k if conditions allow.
> > >
> > > The problem comes when a novice in HiFi SSB (of course, we all start out
> > as
> > > novices) over-drives the low frequencies which then overpowers the mids
> > and
> > > highs, that's when you hear comments like "mushy audio".  There is a
> > learning
> > > curve to the Ham audio hobby as in most things worth while.  With the
> > exception
> > > of prejudice against the audio hobby itself, everyone who listens to a
> > properly
> > > balanced Hi-Fi audio SSB transmission on a properly adjusted and capable
> > > receiver (meaning filters open from 0-50 Hz to 3k or more and a decent
> > spkr or
> > > studio headphones) is at awe of the sounds that can come through in SSB
> > mode.
> > > It is not unusual to hear comments like "Sounds like FM broadcast
> > station".
> > >
> > > I have heard half a dozen or so 756 users who use the acc jack and
>without
> > > exception said they get better audio results by going direct to the
> > balanced
> > > modulator.
> > >
> > > Marty
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hfssbaudio/
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > Adam I don't know what you know technically and I respect your knowledge
> > > however I am amble to run my Heil HC5 through the W2IHY EQ and noise
>gate
> > > and get a nicer and more full range of audio by going direct through the
> > > balance modulator than through the front mic input ...
> > > 73, Steve
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > Larry,
> > > >...the design intent
> > > > is probably to cut off low-frequency components of the microphone
>output
> > > (below
> > > > 250~300 Hz). These components contribute virtually nothing to
> > articulation
> > > at
> > > > the receiver, ....
> > > > Best 73,
> > > > Adam, VA7OJ/AB4OJ
> > >
> > >
> > > ----
> > > Your Moderator: Dick Flanagan W6OLD, [email protected]
> > > Icom FAQ: http://www.qsl.net/icom/
> >
> > ----
> > Your Moderator: Dick Flanagan W6OLD, [email protected]
> > Icom FAQ: http://www.qsl.net/icom/
>
>----
>Your Moderator: Dick Flanagan W6OLD, [email protected]
>Icom FAQ: http://www.qsl.net/icom/