On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 14:47:03 -0500, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: >The one issue with the microphone in the CM-500 is that >it has much more low frequency response than either the >HC-5 or the HC-4. Unless you want to waste a lot of power >in useless low frequency audio response, the CM-500 will >require a significant amount of TX EQ while the HC5/HC4 >can be used without eq.
Are you basing this on actual observations, or on frequency range numbers on a datasheet? All I'm doing with mine is cutting the bottom two octave bands to minimize breath pops, and I would do that with ANY mic. This setting was arrived at by critical reports from audio-conscious hams, and by listening to others and helping them adjust their TXEQ. 73, Jim K9YC ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
