-Original Message-
From: Jimmy Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 6:47 AM
To: 'Edwin Marzan'
Subject: RE: [Flexradio] The inherent muddiness of typical amateur
transceiver audio without EQ
Bandwidth Ed. You can't expect to sound like Walter
How on earth did this high fidelity audio business ever get started? I
suggest that all go to the library and find some of the papers on
communications readability by the Western Electric engineers who studied
this in the twenties and thirties! We communicate. We are not in the
entertainment
I suspect that it is because we always try
to push the limits in ham radio. Sort of
like the hot-rodder tinkering with the
vehicle to squeeze even more performance
out of it.
Stereo: why not? Using independent
sideband, we could do that. What better
place to experiment than ham radio? There
Quoting Mike Naruta [EMAIL PROTECTED], on Tue 03 Jun 2008 06:12:51 AM PDT:
I suspect that it is because we always try
to push the limits in ham radio. Sort of
like the hot-rodder tinkering with the
vehicle to squeeze even more performance
out of it.
Stereo: why not? Using independent
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED], on Tue 03 Jun 2008 06:18:12 AM PDT:
Interesting reading for all...
http://www.polycom.com/common/documents/whitepapers/effect_of_bandwidth_on_speech_intelligibility_1.pdf
I can appreciate the fact that we all have the FLEXibility to dial in o
Excellent link.
Quoting Lee Mushel [EMAIL PROTECTED], on Tue 03 Jun 2008
06:00:12 AM PDT:
How on earth did this high fidelity audio business ever get started? I
suggest that all go to the library and find some of the papers on
communications readability by the Western Electric engineers who studied
this
Interesting reading for all...
http://www.polycom.com/common/documents/whitepapers/effect_of_bandwidth_on_speech_intelligibility_1.pdf
I can appreciate the fact that we all have the FLEXibility to dial in our audio
bandwidth!
Mike K4EAR
-- Original message --
Communication quality audio - yes, but from the original message, the
muddiness described sounds like something isn't right, even within a
3KHz bandwidth.
Even with my $20.00 Radioshack desk mic on the SDR-1000, I get good
audio reports with no TX EQ required and within normal 3KHz TX BW. If my
Interesting, the comments here have been most informative and helpful. Most of
all they make perfect sense. So far 2 of the responses here mention that their
microphones are plugged in and used without equalization.
Why doesn't the prevailing theory apply with them?Edwin MarzanAB2VW From:
On 06/03/08 09:30 am [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Communication quality audio - yes, but from the original message, the
muddiness described sounds like something isn't right, even within a
3KHz bandwidth.
Even with my $20.00 Radioshack desk mic on the SDR-1000, I get good
audio reports with
And the Phoenix communication system is working very well indeed! Great job
JPL!
73 Ross K9COX
Jim, W6RMK
(who designs those deep space radios for a living)
___
FlexRadio Systems Mailing List
FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz
Can anyone help me get this combination working ?
Thanks,
Art K8JK
___
FlexRadio Systems Mailing List
FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz
http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz
Archives:
audio without EQ Any thoughts?
Edwin MarzanAB2VW
According to hams on both sides of the issue, bandwidth is both the problem and
the cure, but you can't argue with the modern science of sound, based on almost
80 years of solid research since those outdated telephone studies were created:
Anyone for a QSO with your Flex on the 10m band? The band has been hot
lately. I'm in Virginia and right now (1 PM Eastern Time) I can hear strong
Beacon signals from Florida to California and in between. Park your Flex's
Panadapter on 28.250 MHz and watch all those Beacon's ID'ing from 28.200
I apologize in advance for getting sucked into this hot topic. I think
there is merit to both side of the argument, but I think the future
must be developing digital modes that will allow digital voice with a
natural sounding frequency response. In other words we need to cram
6Khz of audio (or
Not that it matters, but the 92/93 mentioned below really should be
02/03. My, how time flies!
- Jeff
Jeff Anderson wrote:
Interestingly, one of the primary reasons why the Polycom white paper
(see previous postings) was written was that it was to be a sales tool
to help explain to
try 28435 at 12pm noon dst every day, 7 days a week for a group that
talks for 1 hour. Our center is South Eastern PA Jerry
___
FlexRadio Systems Mailing List
FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz
Interestingly, one of the primary reasons why the Polycom white paper
(see previous postings) was written was that it was to be a sales tool
to help explain to customers why they should purchase Polycom's VTX-1000
speakerphone (which was introduced sometime in the 92/93 time-frame, but
I've
Ed,
Most microphone need some help, on the lower end. You can use the
internal EQ, the 3 band is usually sufficient, but if you use the 10
band, you might try pulling down the 125 and 250 range, usually right
around 160 is where most of the muddy sound comes from. Also try
brining up
On 6/3/08, Brian C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That said, everyone knows wider bandwidths should not be employed on very
crowded amateur bands, nonetheless, the key to intelligibility and
fidelity is b a n d w i d t h.
Hi all,
Actually, IARU recommends max. bandwidth of 2700 Hz on ham bands
Ah, good! I stepped on some toes! Radio Amateurs do not have unlimited
spectra! I think this two channel stuff would be better described by the
concepts of the old binaural sound which was used before some of you were
born. It's just a simple idea that can be of use under some very special
At 06:02 PM 6/3/2008, Lee Mushel wrote:
snip What on earth is the point of
worrying about whether or not there is space between dits at 60 wpm?
Not necessarily at 60 WPM - I would be happy with 35. Wouldn't you
prefer to hear your channel in full duplex? Think about it - how
would you like a
Wow ... this discussion should be simulcast on the Enhanced SSB
reflector...
Well, one of the approaches to kill the muddiness, is a technique that has
been employed in recording/broadcasting over the years..
1.- There is a magic spot in everybody's voice that will increase clarity
and pull
Hello Jerry,
You stated:
Sounds
like you have never actually used it or you would probably not have
made that comment.
I've operated primarily cw for 42 years, and have tried close-enough
QSK with my K2. However, I really dislike hearing band noise between
letters -- forget about between
I've been following this thread and have to attest that Bill's
suggestions work. But why?
As a test I put the Flex in USB at 8khz bandwidth. I limited the
response of my RE27 also to 8Khz. I listened to the raw audio from
the mic and it sounded great. I passed it through the 5k and it
sounded
I am basically happy with the CW performance of the 5000, especially with
the W2RF experimental console. I have some issues with audio popping with
the standard version from the trunk branch. Like Dale, I don't need full QSK
and find it a distraction. But I don't think the 5000, with the current
26 matches
Mail list logo
