] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 16, 2009, 9:19 AM
No, John, I was never been a CE, but a PD several
times.
This same guy was the first to have on his door a sign I've
since seen
[snip]
- Original Message -
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio
compression
At 8/14/2009 17:54, you wrote:
Sounds like, in essence, it was a closed repeater. Only those meeting
some tough standards were allowed.
Oh, it was very open
] Re: An advocate for a little audio
compression
Our engineering prototype parts guy had a sign behind his desk that said:
Failure to plan ahead on your part does not constitute an emergency on my
part
73 - Jim W5ZIT
Apparently you are one of the former Chief Engineers at the station I am
currently the engineer of!
-- Original Message --
Received: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:36:11 AM PDT
From: Paul Plack pl...@xmission.com
In my years in broadcast radio, I often saw program directors and general
managers who
MACKEY
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
Apparently you are one of the former Chief Engineers at the station I am
currently the engineer of!
-- Original Message
On Aug 10, 2009, at 4:41 PM, Laryn Lohman wrote:
Nate, your comments about compression and bad-sounding audio coming
in from IRLP just goes to show, at least in part, that improperly
set-up compression/AGC sounds bad.
Totally agreed. I have been fighting improperly built/designed AGC's
On Aug 11, 2009, at 10:30 AM, skipp025 wrote:
Hi Nate,
re: An advocate for a little audio compression.
Nate Duehr n...@... wrote:
You're a brave man to say it, Skipp.
Here's my problem with it. Let's just say there's a very
large linked repeater system that decided MANY years ago
. Very
agrevating, especially when he runs a net. I ask him to repeat every other
thing he says, even if I heard him the first time. Maybe the light bulb
will come on for him.
73 Paul
- Original Message -
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio
compression
agrevating, especially when he runs a net. I ask him to repeat every other
thing he says, even if I heard him the first time. Maybe the light bulb
will come on for him.
73 Paul
- Original Message -
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio
just picky.
73,
Paul, AE4KR
- Original Message -
From: ae6zm
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 6:54 PM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
Sounds like, in essence, it was a closed repeater. Only
In my years in broadcast radio, I often saw program directors
and general managers who wanted engineering to alter equipment
to accommodate some prima donna morning talent too lazy to
exercise proper mic technique or maintain proper levels.
And if the engineer was smart he would have
Any ol' audio detector/filter/comparitor would do. Nothing
fancy like the SmartVox we use for Shuttle audio (which
doesn't work on amplitude, but rather changes in audio
frequency), just something that says I saw peaks over 4
kHz or average deviation over the past 5 seconds was at
least 1.5
Sounds like, in essence, it was a closed repeater. Only those meeting some
tough standards were allowed. Nothing wrong with that, as long as one doesn't
call it an OPEN repeater. OPEN being anyone operating within the limits of
the FCC rules is welcome.
Wes
AE6ZM VE7ELE
ARRL Techncial
At 8/14/2009 08:54, you wrote:
Let me get this straight... someone installed a circuit
that would cut off the transmission if the user didn't talk
with a loud enough voice into the mic?
Actually, I think it looked for sufficient modulation to activate the
repeater. Once it was up, it would
At 8/14/2009 17:54, you wrote:
Sounds like, in essence, it was a closed repeater. Only those meeting some
tough standards were allowed.
Oh, it was very open. How tough can it be to simply speak up?
Bob NO6B
Jim Brown w5...@... wrote:
One way might be to set the transmitter deviation to 5 kHz
for a 2.5 kHz deviation input signal. Set the VOX threshold
to trip at about 3 kHz input deviation and use it to
switch in a 6 dBV pad to cut the deviation back down. A
fast attack VOX with a slow
Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
A lot of people have voices, which are not considered Radio
or Broadcast Quality in both pitch and volume. Add a little
mic shyness and you're often stuck with lower average deviation.
n...@... wrote:
Still, no reason they can't close-talk
Skipp, right, you do get audio compression by hitting the limiter in the
transmitter harder. I've done that several times myself on repeaters. It does
give a nice boost to the user's audio, but it increases audio background noise
by the same amount. I've A/Bd input audio vs. output audio
At 8/13/2009 08:11, you wrote:
Any ol' audio detector/filter/comparitor would do. Nothing
fancy like the SmartVox we use for Shuttle audio (which
doesn't work on amplitude, but rather changes in audio
frequency), just something that says I saw peaks over 4
kHz or average deviation over
pumping up and
down.
73 - Jim W5ZIT
--- On Wed, 8/12/09, skipp025 skipp...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: skipp025 skipp...@yahoo.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 10:54 AM
n...@... wrote:
Yes, but increasing the user's deviation to the proper
level would help a lot more.
A lot of people have voices, which are not considered Radio
or Broadcast Quality in both pitch and volume. Add a little
mic shyness and you're often stuck with lower average deviation.
At 8/12/2009 08:54, you wrote:
n...@... wrote:
Yes, but increasing the user's deviation to the proper
level would help a lot more.
A lot of people have voices, which are not considered Radio
or Broadcast Quality in both pitch and volume. Add a little
mic shyness and you're often stuck with
Hi Paul,
One has to deal with reality... while you might consider a
soft talking person not properly trained, more than a fair
number of users don't have a booming voice. In a larger number
of cases a little bit of added audio compression/limiting
helps resolve the low (higher/soft pitch)
Hi Nate,
re: An advocate for a little audio compression.
Nate Duehr n...@... wrote:
You're a brave man to say it, Skipp.
Here's my problem with it. Let's just say there's a very
large linked repeater system that decided MANY years ago
that they could fix the incoming audio from their
At 8/11/2009 08:28, you wrote:
Hi Paul,
One has to deal with reality... while you might consider a
soft talking person not properly trained, more than a fair
number of users don't have a booming voice. In a larger number
of cases a little bit of added audio compression/limiting
helps resolve the
Nate, your comments about compression and bad-sounding audio coming in from
IRLP just goes to show, at least in part, that improperly set-up
compression/AGC sounds bad.
For several years, I ran an Alesis 3630 on the audio coming in from IRLP and
feeding our local repeater transmitter. I
is a desktrac repeater capable of audio compression?
- Original Message -
From: Laryn Lohman lar...@hotmail.com
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 6:41 PM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
Nate, your comments
Aug 2009 08:07:45 PM PDT
From: skipp025 skipp...@...
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] An advocate for a little audio compression
re: An advocate for a little audio compression.
Yeah, I know a decent number of you are in-stone
same-in to same-out
Me too. When the ACC RC850 audio levels are adjusted properly, the on-board
AGC gives around the 6-10db of AGC you describe. I believe it works pretty
well and is not annoying.
I used the term AGC intentionally. In the 850 the ratio is around 2:1, and
moderately slow to release. If release
29 matches
Mail list logo
