Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,250
Member is Online
|
Post by Sandbagger on Nov 3, 2014 11:16:39 GMT -5
On further reflection, this is "Classic Radio Roundup", not "Classic, try to sound like a ham radio roundup". We take vintage CB radios, pair them with equivalent period microphones, and run them as we did back in the day. Microphones like the D-104 do not have a flat response, and typically pooch at about 2 Khz. This gives the radio a bit of a "bright" sound, which helps to punch through noise and other interference. I would rather this than a flat and weak sounding stock mic for signals under S9 when the noise is running. As long as the audio is not distorted or overmodulated (and most of our radios have the modulation limiters intact), then it should not be a problem. Once in a while I'll pop on my hi-fi modified Galaxy, mainly when Pete is running his Hallicrafters receiver, because that receiver reproduces the hifi sound so well, it just sounds nice to hear. But that is cheating when it comes to CRR. 1960's and 70's radios didn't sound like that. I get it, SB, but I'm sticking by my guns here, dude . Some of you guys are too damn loud, and there is no possible way they aren't splattering. I also understand that loudness on AM can sometimes make the difference from having a copy on a mobile signal to no copy whatsoever, so I'm also a bit lenient as well. OTOH, when I see one of you guys 40 over on Pete's meter and the mic gain set up to the where I can hear your fans in the background and pencils drop, I have to wonder when somebody is going to mention this. I'd appreciate it if you'd do a test for me, SB. When somebody is really loud, flip channels and see if they're splattering. I'd be willing to bet my last buck that most of them are, dude. For the record, I also hate the flat response that most stock mics have on AM, and, most of the time, the rigs do sound a lot better with amplification. It is also important to note that most decent ham rigs come with a mic gain control on the front panel, where as a lot of CB radios have left this out and use fixed levels of modulation. I get it. Still, some of u guys are WAY TOO LOUD and need to turn that crap down!! . Been there, done that. Very few of our group, who are running vintage rigs splatter more than the slightest bit of scratch on an adjacent channel. My rigs are set by the modulation limiter, not to exceed 100%. Waveform on the scope is sinusoidal and clean, not like the square waves you see coming from "clipped" radios.
|
|
|
Post by cbrown on Nov 4, 2014 10:13:56 GMT -5
I know. I know, CB, but somebody had to mention this, and I figured it should be me rather than one of you guys, possibly insulting your friends. OTOH, I'm not an insensitive ass, and I do try to follow common courtesy, which is why I think most operators would rather hear this from a friend instead of some blow-hard like myself . I only bring this up because, the way I see things, there is no possible way in this world that some of them aren't splattering with that much modulation. It's just not going to happen, and that level of splattering is most definitely going to lead to some kind of channel conflict further on down the road. I feel fairly confident saying the people on this forum know how to run their radios correctly. I know all my limiters are intact, and my radios are set not to exceed 100% modulation. If you want to go on a campaign to clean up the CB band radio signal, find the guys with the cut limiters running over-driven Class C amplifiers. The moment you take this hobby so seriously that minor things annoy you is the moment the hobby stops being enjoyable.
|
|
|
Post by ab5ni on Nov 4, 2014 11:20:34 GMT -5
I get it, SB, but I'm sticking by my guns here, dude . Some of you guys are too damn loud, and there is no possible way they aren't splattering. I also understand that loudness on AM can sometimes make the difference from having a copy on a mobile signal to no copy whatsoever, so I'm also a bit lenient as well. OTOH, when I see one of you guys 40 over on Pete's meter and the mic gain set up to the where I can hear your fans in the background and pencils drop, I have to wonder when somebody is going to mention this. I'd appreciate it if you'd do a test for me, SB. When somebody is really loud, flip channels and see if they're splattering. I'd be willing to bet my last buck that most of them are, dude. For the record, I also hate the flat response that most stock mics have on AM, and, most of the time, the rigs do sound a lot better with amplification. It is also important to note that most decent ham rigs come with a mic gain control on the front panel, where as a lot of CB radios have left this out and use fixed levels of modulation. I get it. Still, some of u guys are WAY TOO LOUD and need to turn that crap down!! . Been there, done that. Very few of our group, who are running vintage rigs splatter more than the slightest bit of scratch on an adjacent channel. My rigs are set by the modulation limiter, not to exceed 100%. Waveform on the scope is sinusoidal and clean, not like the square waves you see coming from "clipped" radios. As I'm sure you are well aware, that "scratch" is splatter, also known as "buckshot" in some circles. Buckshot is majorly infamous for producing out-of-band harmonics. You wouldn't like what you'd see on a spectrum analyzer -- that's for sure. BTW, I have absolutely no complaints on your audio, SB. Most of this is happening when you guys change radios and use the same mic level, not readjusting your mic gain, and I find it very interesting that you folks don't tell the other operators to turn that crap down. 73, Randy AB5NI
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,250
Member is Online
|
Post by Sandbagger on Nov 4, 2014 16:37:42 GMT -5
Been there, done that. Very few of our group, who are running vintage rigs splatter more than the slightest bit of scratch on an adjacent channel. My rigs are set by the modulation limiter, not to exceed 100%. Waveform on the scope is sinusoidal and clean, not like the square waves you see coming from "clipped" radios. As I'm sure you are well aware, that "scratch" is splatter, also known as "buckshot" in some circles. Buckshot is majorly infamous for producing out-of-band harmonics. You wouldn't like what you'd see on a spectrum analyzer -- that's for sure. BTW, I have absolutely no complaints on your audio, SB. Most of this is happening when you guys change radios and use the same mic level, not readjusting your mic gain, and I find it very interesting that you folks don't tell the other operators to turn that crap down. I keep trying to tell you that the excessive loudness differential is only apparent on the videogate. From my perspective listening on the radio, it's not that drastic. As for the bleedover, even completely stock legal radios will scratch one channel away if their signal is strong enough. It all depends on the selectivity of the receiver. Most of these old rigs have an adjacent channel rejection of between -45 and -60db. A signal at S9 will still be detectable on the adjacent channel at an about an S2 signal level of a rig with -45db of rejection. That is about the level of scratch I'm talking about. Not the kind of splatter where you can understand what someone is saying 3 channels away, as is typical for the clipped radio "all knobs to the right" crowd.
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,250
Member is Online
|
Post by Sandbagger on Nov 13, 2014 11:42:21 GMT -5
Pete's a little slow out of the "gate" (bad pun!). Here's the link to the latest CRR video gate for 11/12/2014
|
|
|
Post by spitfire441 on Nov 13, 2014 14:34:51 GMT -5
I would have got there eventually.... 441
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,250
Member is Online
|
Post by Sandbagger on Nov 13, 2014 17:34:28 GMT -5
I would have got there eventually.... 441 Well, you know how everyone waits with baited breath for the next gate to come out...........
|
|
|
Post by ab5ni on Nov 14, 2014 2:11:22 GMT -5
Pete's a little slow out of the "gate" (bad pun!). Here's the link to the latest CRR video gate for 11/12/2014 Go directly to this video on YouTube and look at the comment I posted there. You probably won't like it much, but trust me when I say things that I have your best interests at heart. (No crap!) You guys have WAY too much interest in "audio punch," in my book. Also, if you don't think that quater-wave Dave's mic gain at 1:05 in the video is too much, I give up! 73, Randy AB5NI
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,250
Member is Online
|
Post by Sandbagger on Nov 14, 2014 6:55:44 GMT -5
Pete's a little slow out of the "gate" (bad pun!). Here's the link to the latest CRR video gate for 11/12/2014 Go directly to this video on YouTube and look at the comment I posted there. You probably won't like it much, but trust me when I say things that I have your best interests at heart. (No crap!) You guys have WAY too much interest in "audio punch," in my book. Also, if you don't think that quater-wave Dave's mic gain at 1:05 in the video is too much, I give up! 73, Randy AB5NI Yes, it was a bit high at one point, but then he corrected it on his own. Most of us have the means to monitor our own transmissions, and adjust accordingly. And once again, Classic Radio Roundup is about reliving how radios were operated in the past. That means sometimes hollow room acoustics, that means the bright 2 khz pooch of a D104. It can also mean undermodulated stock mics too. Other than my highly modified Galaxy, none of these vintage radios will ever come close to being broadcast quality, and we're not really trying for that goal. And again, the sound you hear off of the video gate is also somewhat tainted due to the conditions by which Pete has to record. He's doing acoustical coupling into a tablet which seems to lack adequate record sensitivity, so he has to compensate for this by cranking up the volume and placing an external speaker practically on-top of the tablet. This tends to distort what you hear. I know it sounds far cleaner on my end. I don't like hearing distortion and I'll be the first to call attention to anything that sounds "off". I'm also not a big fan of continual echo, because it tends to get set too high. But as long as it's clean sounding, I'm good. And considering the often high static, noise, and other interference, those who don't have a fairly high level of mic audio are often harder to copy through the noise, so I appreciate modulation that punches through that.
|
|
|
Post by ab5ni on Nov 14, 2014 7:08:10 GMT -5
Go directly to this video on YouTube and look at the comment I posted there. You probably won't like it much, but trust me when I say things that I have your best interests at heart. (No crap!) You guys have WAY too much interest in "audio punch," in my book. Also, if you don't think that quater-wave Dave's mic gain at 1:05 in the video is too much, I give up! 73, Randy AB5NI Yes, it was a bit high at one point, but then he corrected it on his own. Most of us have the means to monitor our own transmissions, and adjust accordingly. Guess too much could never be said about using a monitor scope or oscope to monitor transmissions. Seriously, I really don't care that folks have too much audio "umph," but there is one situation that matters here: when SF says "WOW!" and turns down his volume, I have to turn up my audio to hear everyone, and then some other operator comes blasting in, making me turn down my audio to the point that I can't hear other folks. It's a bit nerve-racking at times. I thought I'd solve that issue and listen on your spew radio feed, SB, but for some reason I'm not hearing other operators now and again, so I get a one-sided conversation: your audio, and your audio alone. :/ 73, Randy AB5NI
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,250
Member is Online
|
Post by Sandbagger on Nov 14, 2014 7:47:33 GMT -5
Yes, it was a bit high at one point, but then he corrected it on his own. Most of us have the means to monitor our own transmissions, and adjust accordingly. Guess too much could never be said about using a monitor scope or oscope to monitor transmissions. Seriously, I really don't care that folks have too much audio "umph," but there is one situation that matters here: when SF says "WOW!" and turns down his volume, I have to turn up my audio to hear everyone, and then some other operator comes blasting in, making me turn down my audio to the point that I can't hear other folks. It's a bit nerve-racking at times. I thought I'd solve that issue and listen on your spew radio feed, SB, but for some reason I'm not hearing other operators now and again, so I get a one-sided conversation: your audio, and your audio alone. :/ 73, Randy AB5NI I apologize for the issues with Spew Radio that night. I was switching my usual equipment around and in the process of connecting the cables, I inadvertently left the connection to the Spew Radio receive out of line, but since no one was on at the time, I didn't fix it right away. I later corrected it, when I saw someone had connected to it. But the audio is at a far more consistent level there than what you hear on the 'gate, even considering how strong my signal is being right next to it.
|
|
|
Post by ab5ni on Nov 14, 2014 20:18:05 GMT -5
Not a problem, SB. Spew Radio is being provided free of charge, so "as is" operation is fine by me. 73, Randy AB5NI
|
|
|
Post by spitfire441 on Nov 20, 2014 6:45:07 GMT -5
Here it is, the stock microphone edition of CRR. B&K Cobra 98 and Regency Imperial II.
|
|
|
Post by Night Ranger on Nov 20, 2014 9:05:31 GMT -5
Here it is, the stock microphone edition of CRR. B&K Cobra 98 and Regency Imperial II. Thanks for the videogate. I tuned my Drake TR-7 and my Lazy H antenna to 27.115 MHz last night, but all I heard was static for two hours. My Royce 1-620 23 channel base on my wire J-Pole antenna did start picking up some Sporadic E skip from Texas around 9:00 p.m. EST. Night Ranger
|
|
|
Post by ab5ni on Nov 20, 2014 14:59:45 GMT -5
Here it is, the stock microphone edition of CRR. B&K Cobra 98 and Regency Imperial II. WHAT!!!? A CRR with stock mics!! . WOOT!!! Seriously, you guys do sound a lot better with amplified mics, but when they are turned WAY up to where I can hear your cats and dogs fart in the next room, it's get a bit "rough," to say the least . 73, Randy AB5NI
|
|
|
Post by ab5ni on Nov 20, 2014 15:22:04 GMT -5
Man, I'm enjoying the hell out of this CRR!! Had to pause the video to tell everyone how GREAT they're sounding!! . Oh, 441: I'm adding your antenna-product suggestion to the DOSY-DOH! production list. I'm sure it will be a HUGE success!! . Also thinking about selling 15-foot drill bits so folks can hollow out their solid elements, too!! Funny thing is that some of those stock mics don't sound half bad, although u can notice a lot of frequency constraints for sure. 73, Randy AB5NI
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,250
Member is Online
|
Post by Sandbagger on Nov 20, 2014 20:15:15 GMT -5
Man, I'm enjoying the hell out of this CRR!! Had to pause the video to tell everyone how GREAT they're sounding!! . Oh, 441: I'm adding your antenna-product suggestion to the DOSY-DOH! production list. I'm sure it will be a HUGE success!! . Also thinking about selling 15-foot drill bits so folks can hollow out their solid elements, too!! Funny thing is that some of those stock mics don't sound half bad, although u can notice a lot of frequency constraints for sure. Many CB myths were explored and many more will come. And yes, now you know why most people only ran their stock mic long enough to buy an amplified mic. The overall frequency response really does leave a lot to be desired.
|
|
|
Post by ab5ni on Nov 21, 2014 6:25:35 GMT -5
Man, I'm enjoying the hell out of this CRR!! Had to pause the video to tell everyone how GREAT they're sounding!! . Oh, 441: I'm adding your antenna-product suggestion to the DOSY-DOH! production list. I'm sure it will be a HUGE success!! . Also thinking about selling 15-foot drill bits so folks can hollow out their solid elements, too!! Funny thing is that some of those stock mics don't sound half bad, although u can notice a lot of frequency constraints for sure. Many CB myths were explored and many more will come. And yes, now you know why most people only ran their stock mic long enough to buy an amplified mic. The overall frequency response really does leave a lot to be desired. I remember hearing the one about the solid elements causing signal degradation. They were saying that RF frequencies were being attenuated because the electrons were traveling inside solid elements at certain frequencies when all the electrons should have been on the outer circumference due to skin effect to work properly . One guy told me this, and I came back with, "You do realize that an antenna is nothing more the a positive and negative pole electromagnet, right?" He says, "What do you mean?" and I came back with, "Oh, nevermind. You're probably right and it does work that way." . Back in the 70's and 80's, I was a member of a group of hams called "The WINO's" that hung around 7.240 MHz, which was right between two massive AM broadcast stations, and we even had one that would crank up full bore right on frequency. Most everyone was running some type of directional antenna (I was using phased dipoles), and our signals were comparable to the 3.895 group on 75. We had the biggest signals on the band, bar none. When I got my Yaesu FT-101E, my friends in the group said, "Randy, that stock mic has to go! It's too damn bassy! Put a .1uf cap in series with the positive lead and let's see if we can get rid of some of that low end." I did so, they said it sounded a LOT better, and being an audiophile I said, "Hold it here a second, guys! Aren't we just building half of an audio equalizer here, minus the resistive component??" My good friend Mick, W6LVW came back with, "Yes, Randy, that's exactly what we are doing! Hmmm. You've given me an idea." Over the next few nights, he was playing around with a 4-band equalizer, tuning his audio this way and that, and everyone was amazed at how much better his audio quality sounded. One member of the group, Bob Heil, K9EID of Heil Sound, built a two-band audio equalizer and published the schematic in QST a few months later. This eventually led to his series of microphones sold to hams throughout the world. The main point here was that it was the audio equalization and not the amplification that made the biggest difference in his audio quality. Most decent ham rigs come with an adjustable microphone pre-amp, yet you hardly ever hear the type of amplified audio you hear on the CB band. They are capable of cranking their mic gain up to the point where u could hear a gnat fart at 1000 yards, yet you hardly ever hear this type of audio on the ham bands. The CB rigs you guys are using do not have adjustable pre-amps, as they are set at fixed levels from the factory -- mainly to avoid over modulation, I'd assume -- and very, very few of you use audio equalization. With the CB rigs' pre-amps being fixed, it's no wonder that a non-stock amplified mic makes your audio sound better, especially when these other mics, such as the D-104, are peaked at a particular frequency response. It is also important to note here that those stock mics are peaked up in the audio frequency range to make Asian males' voices sound natural. You'll also notice that most of the older American-built rigs usually don't display this lack of frequency response, as they are "tuned" for the American male voice. A good example of this would be 441's Metro Tech and Mustang rigs. You said you couldn't wait to read my response to the "stock mic videogate," SB? Well, here you go, bud! . ENJOY! 73, Rand AB5NI
|
|
|
Post by Night Ranger on Nov 21, 2014 8:16:39 GMT -5
Many CB myths were explored and many more will come. And yes, now you know why most people only ran their stock mic long enough to buy an amplified mic. The overall frequency response really does leave a lot to be desired. I remember hearing the one about the solid elements causing signal degradation. They were saying that RF frequencies were being attenuated because the electrons were traveling inside solid elements at certain frequencies when all the electrons should have been on the outer circumference due to skin effect to work properly . One guy told me this, and I came back with, "You do realize that an antenna is nothing more the a positive and negative pole electromagnet, right?" He says, "What do you mean?" and I came back with, "Oh, nevermind. You're probably right and it does work that way." . Back in the 70's and 80's, I was a member of a group of hams called "The WINO's" that hung around 7.240 MHz, which was right between two massive AM broadcast stations, and we even had one that would crank up full bore right on frequency. Most everyone was running some type of directional antenna (I was using phased dipoles), and our signals were comparable to the 3.895 group on 75. We had the biggest signals on the band, bar none. When I got my Yaesu FT-101E, my friends in the group said, "Randy, that stock mic has to go! It's too damn bassy! Put a .1uf cap in series with the positive lead and let's see if we can get rid of some of that low end. I did so, they said it sounded a LOT better, and being an audiophile I said, "Hold it here a second, guys! Aren't we just building half of an audio equalizer here, minus the resistive component??" My good friend Mick, W6LVW came back with, "Yes, Randy, that's exactly what we are doing! Hmmm. You've given me an idea." Over the next few nights, he was playing around with a 4-band equalizer, tuning his audio this way and that, and everyone was amazed at how much better his audio quality sounded. One member of the group, Bob Heil, K9EID of Heil Sound, built a two-band audio equalizer and published the schematic in QST a few months later. This eventually led to his series of microphones sold to hams throughout the world. The main point here was that it was the audio equalization and not the amplification that made the biggest difference in his audio quality. Most decent ham rigs come with an adjustable microphone pre-amp, yet you hardly ever hear the type of amplified audio you hear on the CB band. They are capable of cranking their mic gain up to the point where u could hear a gnat fart at 1000 yards, yet you hardly ever hear this type of audio on the ham bands. The CB rigs you guys are using do not have adjustable pre-amps, as they are set at fixed levels from the factory -- mainly to avoid over modulation, I'd assume -- and very, very few of you use audio equalization. With the CB rigs' pre-amps being fixed, it's no wonder that a non-stock amplified mic makes your audio sound better, especially when these other mics, such as the D-104, are peaked at a particular frequency response. It is also important to note here that those stock mics are peaked up in the audio frequency range to make Asian males' voices sound natural. You'll also notice that most of the older American-built rigs usually don't display this lack of frequency response, as they are "tuned" for the American male voice. A good example of this would be 441's Metro Tech and Mustang rigs. You said you couldn't wait to read my response to the "stock mic videogate," SB? Well, here you go, bud! . ENJOY! 73, Rand AB5NI In the recording industry there is a general consensus about EQ versus microphones. If you have to use alot of EQ to make a microphone sound right then you need a better microphone or the microphone placement is wrong. When I was 12 years old and knew nothing of radio I remember listening to the local teenagers on channel 13. They would come on the air with their new CB's and stock microphones. It sounded ok, but when they added a D-104 or a Turner +2 or +3 it made a huge difference in the quality of their audio to my young ears. I liked both, but I thought a D-104 sounded the best. As time has gone by the crystal elements in some of those D-104s have lost their fidelity and become trebly. Sometimes the loss of fidelity turned out to be the little 4.7uf electrolytic capacitor in series with the audio line drying out. In any case a properly working D-104 with a good element is still one of the best sounding microphones to my ears. The problem is many CB'ers crank the gain way too high. This is a video of me coming in skip from 700 miles away to Sandbagger's Spew Radio Internet feed. I'm using a Robyn T-123b, Astatic D-104 TUG8, a D&A Maverick with cheap 6km6 tubes in the final section, and a home made Lazy H antenna fed with 450 ohm ladder. Other than the digital artifacts caused by the low sampling rate, it sounds pretty good to my ears. Night Ranger on Sandbaggers live feed 7-5-2014 www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Fpolo_zWIMNight Ranger
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,250
Member is Online
|
Post by Sandbagger on Nov 21, 2014 8:21:01 GMT -5
Many CB myths were explored and many more will come. And yes, now you know why most people only ran their stock mic long enough to buy an amplified mic. The overall frequency response really does leave a lot to be desired. I remember hearing the one about the solid elements causing signal degradation. They were saying that RF frequencies were being attenuated because the electrons were traveling inside solid elements at certain frequencies when all the electrons should have been on the outer circumference due to skin effect to work properly . One guy told me this, and I came back with, "You do realize that an antenna is nothing more the a positive and negative pole electromagnet, right?" He says, "What do you mean?" and I came back with, "Oh, nevermind. You're probably right and it does work that way." . Back in the 70's and 80's, I was a member of a group of hams called "The WINO's" that hung around 7.240 MHz, which was right between two massive AM broadcast stations, and we even had one that would crank up full bore right on frequency. Most everyone was running some type of directional antenna (I was using phased dipoles), and our signals were comparable to the 3.895 group on 75. We had the biggest signals on the band, bar none. When I got my Yaesu FT-101E, my friends in the group said, "Randy, that stock mic has to go! It's too damn bassy! Put a .1uf cap in series with the positive lead and let's see if we can get rid of some of that low end. I did so, they said it sounded a LOT better, and being an audiophile I said, "Hold it here a second, guys! Aren't we just building half of an audio equalizer here, minus the resistive component??" My good friend Mick, W6LVW came back with, "Yes, Randy, that's exactly what we are doing! Hmmm. You've given me an idea." Over the next few nights, he was playing around with a 4-band equalizer, tuning his audio this way and that, and everyone was amazed at how much better his audio quality sounded. One member of the group, Bob Heil, K9EID of Heil Sound, built a two-band audio equalizer and published the schematic in QST a few months later. This eventually led to his series of microphones sold to hams throughout the world. The main point here was that it was the audio equalization and not the amplification that made the biggest difference in his audio quality. Most decent ham rigs come with an adjustable microphone pre-amp, yet you hardly ever hear the type of amplified audio you hear on the CB band. They are capable of cranking their mic gain up to the point where u could hear a gnat fart at 1000 yards, yet you hardly ever hear this type of audio on the ham bands. The CB rigs you guys are using do not have adjustable pre-amps, as they are set at fixed levels from the factory -- mainly to avoid over modulation, I'd assume -- and very, very few of you use audio equalization. With the CB rigs' pre-amps being fixed, it's no wonder that a non-stock amplified mic makes your audio sound better, especially when these other mics, such as the D-104, are peaked at a particular frequency response. It is also important to note here that those stock mics are peaked up in the audio frequency range to make Asian males' voices sound natural. You'll also notice that most of the older American-built rigs usually don't display this lack of frequency response, as they are "tuned" for the American male voice. A good example of this would be 441's Metro Tech and Mustang rigs. You said you couldn't wait to read my response to the "stock mic videogate," SB? Well, here you go, bud! . ENJOY! Well, the goals of the AM crowd on ham radio and the CB crowd are very different. Most of the hams who run AM want to sound like broadcast stations and have a rack full of audio processing gear including EQ's, compressors, asymmetrical modulation, and a studio microphone with a bandwidth that runs from 20 - 15,000 Hz to achieve that goal. CB'ers aren't typically as sophisticated. They just want something that sounds impressive. And usually the sound that most go for is that pooched midrange, "punch-through-the-noise", with a degree of hollow room acoustics, presence. The biggest problem is that not all radios have the same bandwidth. That's why some seem to sound better with a D104, while others are far more natural sounding with a Turner +3 or Super Sidekick. Back in the 70's we pretty much took what we got and did our best to make them work. The other thing is that the FCC's tighter regulations which took effect in the mid to late 70's changed the specs for audio bandwidth. Older 60's and early 70's vintage tube rigs often allowed audio response down to 100 hz or a little lower. This gave those rigs a warmer fuller sound. Newer rigs fall off rapidly below 300 hz, which makes the audio sound "thin". That's why rigs like the Regency imperial, the Hy-Gain 623, the Trams, etc have the nicest full bodied modulation. I'm torn between my love of higher fidelity audio, and my desire to keep my vintage rigs as they were when they were manufactured. If the rig sounds acceptably well in its stock configuration, I'll leave it alone. If it's one of those rigs that has a "tinny" thin sound, I will extend the bottom end a bit to make it sound fuller. I'm sure you've heard my modified Galaxy with the EQ installed. That's an example of what you can do with a CB rig if you are truly motivated. There is a growing trend among some circles toward trying to sound more like broadcast stations. There are a few notable operators out there like Bassmaster, Motormouth-Maul, and a couple of others who have the gear and have modified their rigs to sound much more like the AM guys on the ham bands, and broadcasters. All it takes is know-how, and money. But as far as CRR is concerned, we're more concerned with reliving the 60's & 70's CB experience.
|
|
|
Post by ab5ni on Nov 21, 2014 9:34:03 GMT -5
You are correct about all the aspects mentioned here, NR, but there is also another component you have to deal with here as well: so-called "audio or acoustic" engineers not selecting the right microphone or element for the job. For instance, some of these "engineers" say, "That's an expensive mic, so let's get 8 Neumans of the same type and things should sound great!" The main problem with this is that they all might use cardioid patterns, when a figure 8 is better suited on a kick bass or vocals, especially when two singers are sharing the same microphone and such. In other words, correctly sampling the audio to begin with is paramount to properly recording audio. A dynamic mic might be the proper selection in one recording environment, where in another it might be to use a different element and pattern to record properly. The room you are recording in and its acoustic phase relationships are also extremely important, and a great sound engineer will know this. These mics are also designed to have very good dynamic range, with a pretty flat response over the given spectrum. Some are even tuned specifically for certain instruments as well. In the recording world, equalization is the "final tweak," and it's usually used to "peak a room" that is displaying a bit of unusual acoustic characteristics and phase relationships. With the limited bandwidth constraints due to narrower pass-band filtering, and with stock mics on Asian-built rigs favoring the low end of the audio spectrum, it's no wonder why the D-104 tends to be the mic of choice in the CB world, for the most part. Also, with amplified mics compensating for the lack of adjustable mic gain, it's no wonder that they are much sought after in the CB world. My main problem here is that way too many CB operators fail to adjust their mics properly, thinking that the louder they turn up their mics, the better their signal transmission is going to be and such. "Meters fly around more, so that HAS to be better!" Spinning rims; neon lights around the car and on the dash; more visual things needed!! DOSY meter, you're my friend!!! . "The problem is many CB'ers crank the gain way too high." -- Night Ranger. Yes, it sure is, NR, and this is exactly what I'm trying to point out with all of this, and I'm not doing this to say I'm better than anyone or to light my own fuse. I'm saying all this stuff to actually help folks, although I'm not too sure I'm making any headway here. It is also important to note here that I'm not directing my comments toward any certain individuals. What I'm hoping here is that our discussion might be run across by folks skimming and searching for such topics, and maybe we might save a new CB or HAM operator a few starting pains along their path to radio exploration . I'll make sure I give it a listen for sure, although I'm pretty certain I'm not ever going to be hearing crap audio coming out of your station, NR!! 73, Randy AB5NI
|
|
|
Post by ab5ni on Nov 21, 2014 10:15:21 GMT -5
I remember hearing the one about the solid elements causing signal degradation. They were saying that RF frequencies were being attenuated because the electrons were traveling inside solid elements at certain frequencies when all the electrons should have been on the outer circumference due to skin effect to work properly . One guy told me this, and I came back with, "You do realize that an antenna is nothing more the a positive and negative pole electromagnet, right?" He says, "What do you mean?" and I came back with, "Oh, nevermind. You're probably right and it does work that way." . Back in the 70's and 80's, I was a member of a group of hams called "The WINO's" that hung around 7.240 MHz, which was right between two massive AM broadcast stations, and we even had one that would crank up full bore right on frequency. Most everyone was running some type of directional antenna (I was using phased dipoles), and our signals were comparable to the 3.895 group on 75. We had the biggest signals on the band, bar none. When I got my Yaesu FT-101E, my friends in the group said, "Randy, that stock mic has to go! It's too damn bassy! Put a .1uf cap in series with the positive lead and let's see if we can get rid of some of that low end. I did so, they said it sounded a LOT better, and being an audiophile I said, "Hold it here a second, guys! Aren't we just building half of an audio equalizer here, minus the resistive component??" My good friend Mick, W6LVW came back with, "Yes, Randy, that's exactly what we are doing! Hmmm. You've given me an idea." Over the next few nights, he was playing around with a 4-band equalizer, tuning his audio this way and that, and everyone was amazed at how much better his audio quality sounded. One member of the group, Bob Heil, K9EID of Heil Sound, built a two-band audio equalizer and published the schematic in QST a few months later. This eventually led to his series of microphones sold to hams throughout the world. The main point here was that it was the audio equalization and not the amplification that made the biggest difference in his audio quality. Most decent ham rigs come with an adjustable microphone pre-amp, yet you hardly ever hear the type of amplified audio you hear on the CB band. They are capable of cranking their mic gain up to the point where u could hear a gnat fart at 1000 yards, yet you hardly ever hear this type of audio on the ham bands. The CB rigs you guys are using do not have adjustable pre-amps, as they are set at fixed levels from the factory -- mainly to avoid over modulation, I'd assume -- and very, very few of you use audio equalization. With the CB rigs' pre-amps being fixed, it's no wonder that a non-stock amplified mic makes your audio sound better, especially when these other mics, such as the D-104, are peaked at a particular frequency response. It is also important to note here that those stock mics are peaked up in the audio frequency range to make Asian males' voices sound natural. You'll also notice that most of the older American-built rigs usually don't display this lack of frequency response, as they are "tuned" for the American male voice. A good example of this would be 441's Metro Tech and Mustang rigs. You said you couldn't wait to read my response to the "stock mic videogate," SB? Well, here you go, bud! . ENJOY! Well, the goals of the AM crowd on ham radio and the CB crowd are very different. Most of the hams who run AM want to sound like broadcast stations and have a rack full of audio processing gear including EQ's, compressors, asymmetrical modulation, and a studio microphone with a bandwidth that runs from 20 - 15,000 Hz to achieve that goal. CB'ers aren't typically as sophisticated. They just want something that sounds impressive. And usually the sound that most go for is that pooched midrange, "punch-through-the-noise", with a degree of hollow room acoustics, presence. The biggest problem is that not all radios have the same bandwidth. That's why some seem to sound better with a D104, while others are far more natural sounding with a Turner +3 or Super Sidekick. Back in the 70's we pretty much took what we got and did our best to make them work. The other thing is that the FCC's tighter regulations which took effect in the mid to late 70's changed the specs for audio bandwidth. Older 60's and early 70's vintage tube rigs often allowed audio response down to 100 hz or a little lower. This gave those rigs a warmer fuller sound. Newer rigs fall off rapidly below 300 hz, which makes the audio sound "thin". That's why rigs like the Regency imperial, the Hy-Gain 623, the Trams, etc have the nicest full bodied modulation. I'm torn between my love of higher fidelity audio, and my desire to keep my vintage rigs as they were when they were manufactured. If the rig sounds acceptably well in its stock configuration, I'll leave it alone. If it's one of those rigs that has a "tinny" thin sound, I will extend the bottom end a bit to make it sound fuller. I'm sure you've heard my modified Galaxy with the EQ installed. That's an example of what you can do with a CB rig if you are truly motivated. There is a growing trend among some circles toward trying to sound more like broadcast stations. There are a few notable operators out there like Bassmaster, Motormouth-Maul, and a couple of others who have the gear and have modified their rigs to sound much more like the AM guys on the ham bands, and broadcasters. All it takes is know-how, and money. But as far as CRR is concerned, we're more concerned with reliving the 60's & 70's CB experience. You are totally right about the bandwidth limitations on the CB rigs, SB. Ham's get to use 10-KHz of spectrum without the SSB guys complaining too much, and that gives them a lot more headroom to play around with their audio characteristics for sure. With the FCC clamping down on things with tighter restrictions, it's a wonder in and of itself that you guys can have decent audio on AM. I'd also be torn between high fidelity and messing around with a vintage piece of gear. Personally, I'd do what you are doing, leaving most (if not all) of them alone, for the most part. An EQ on those rigs will probably solve a lot of the problems as well, should they exist, although I'm pretty sure you are already doing this, SB. I have heard your modified Galaxy many, many times, SB. I listen to a new (to me) videogate just before I'm going to take a nap, and I think there might be only 3 or 4 of them I've not heard yet . I usually fall asleep to them, and most of the time I have to rewind to the point were I dosed off to hear the rest of one . Sometimes it takes me a few days to watch an entire video because of this . Anyway, your Galaxy rig sounds fantastic on SF's rigs! The frequency response coming through the videos is awesome on 441's rigs. Hmmm. Next gate, would you mind using your Galaxy and asking 441 if he could use one of the newer bandwidth-limited rigs? I'm curious to see what you can pull off with that kind of situation for sure. 73, Randy AB5NI
|
|
|
Post by cbrown on Nov 21, 2014 10:26:57 GMT -5
You are correct about all the aspects mentioned here, NR, but there is also another component you have to deal with here as well: so-called "audio or acoustic" engineers not selecting the right microphone or element for the job. For instance, some of these "engineers" say, "That's an expensive mic, so let's get 8 Neumans of the same type and things should sound great!" The main problem with this is that they all might use cardioid patterns, when a figure 8 is better suited on a kick bass or vocals, especially when two singers are sharing the same microphone and such. In other words, correctly sampling the audio to begin with is paramount to properly recording audio. A dynamic mic might be the proper selection in one recording environment, where in another it might be to use a different element and pattern to record properly. The room you are recording in and its acoustic phase relationships are also extremely important, and a great sound engineer will know this. These mics are also designed to have very good dynamic range, with a pretty flat response over the given spectrum. Some are even tuned specifically for certain instruments as well. In the recording world, equalization is the "final tweak," and it's usually used to "peak a room" that is displaying a bit of unusual acoustic characteristics and phase relationships. You're going off tangent here; comparing communications microphone characteristics with studio recording microphones is apples to oranges.
|
|
|
Post by Night Ranger on Nov 21, 2014 12:18:15 GMT -5
I'm sure you've heard my modified Galaxy with the EQ installed. That's an example of what you can do with a CB rig if you are truly motivated. There is a growing trend among some circles toward trying to sound more like broadcast stations. There are a few notable operators out there like Bassmaster, Motormouth-Maul, and a couple of others who have the gear and have modified their rigs to sound much more like the AM guys on the ham bands, and broadcasters. All it takes is know-how, and money. But as far as CRR is concerned, we're more concerned with reliving the 60's & 70's CB experience. Some of those guys are just using the CB to generate the frequency and the carrier. The modulation is completely outboard, and it is fed back in to the driver and final transistor on the CB radio. Unfortunately that extra audio frequency bandwidth can easily exceed the assigned 10 kHz channel bandwidth. A 20 kHz audio signal times 2 equals 40 kHz of AM bandwidth. That is four CB channels. I heard Mustang 131 in California using his extended audio bandwidth to play music on channel 19 a few weeks back, and I heard him from five channels away. His signal was only S9, and that is not near enough to overload the selectivity on that receiver by itself. This is a video someone made of Mustang 131's bandwidth coming in skip. Check the audio bandwidth. The AM transmitted bandwidth will be twice that. www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKspCLH0sAsNight Ranger
|
|
|
Post by ab5ni on Nov 21, 2014 13:20:04 GMT -5
I'm sure you've heard my modified Galaxy with the EQ installed. That's an example of what you can do with a CB rig if you are truly motivated. There is a growing trend among some circles toward trying to sound more like broadcast stations. There are a few notable operators out there like Bassmaster, Motormouth-Maul, and a couple of others who have the gear and have modified their rigs to sound much more like the AM guys on the ham bands, and broadcasters. All it takes is know-how, and money. But as far as CRR is concerned, we're more concerned with reliving the 60's & 70's CB experience. Some of those guys are just using the CB to generate the frequency and the carrier. The modulation is completely outboard, and it is fed back in to the driver and final transistor on the CB radio. Unfortunately that extra audio frequency bandwidth can easily exceed the assigned 10 kHz channel bandwidth. A 20 kHz audio signal times 2 equals 40 kHz of AM bandwidth. That is four CB channels. I heard Mustang 131 in California using his extended audio bandwidth to play music on channel 19 a few weeks back, and I heard him from five channels away. His signal was only S9, and that is not near enough to overload the selectivity on that receiver by itself. This is a video someone made of Mustang 131's bandwidth coming in skip. Check the audio bandwidth. The AM transmitted bandwidth will be twice that. www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKspCLH0sAsNight Ranger He did have decent audio, but at what expense? Does he actually believe the vast majority of CB rigs (or the most expensive ham rigs, for that matter) can actually pass the audio spectrum he's producing? As I'm sure you're well aware, all he's accomplishing here is filling up the entire passband of a given radio. I'm trying to think of a factory-built CB or Ham rig that can actually pass 20 KHz of audio on AM these days, and I'm coming up blank. 15 KHz would take something like spitfire's 274-D receiver made back in the 50's to pass this frequency range, or a good/older communications receiver, but how may receivers like that do you think are actually listening to his audio? Okay! That's it! I have a new term for morons like this: he's a "DOHzer!" Not to be confused with a bulldozer, mind you, although he'd probably think you were complimenting him by calling him one. Here's a link to an interesting article on the subject: www.engineeringradio.us/blog/2014/03/the-am-receiver-problem/Update: Now that I've thought about it a bit, some of the newer SDR and DPS-filtered rigs can pass that frequency range, but still -- at what expense? 40 KHz of bandwidth? With a big signal like that, he's absolutely begging for trouble. 73, Randy AB5NI
|
|
|
Post by BBB on Nov 21, 2014 17:57:39 GMT -5
Stock Mic Night was undoubtedly one of the better CRR's. Thanks again for the gate. Stock Mic Night had me digging in the drawer for a stock coffin mic that worked. I went thru three or four before I found a couple that worked. I noticed Spitfire wasn't reaching for the AF Gain as much due to the more level audio playing field
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,250
Member is Online
|
Post by Sandbagger on Nov 21, 2014 19:21:00 GMT -5
I'm sure you've heard my modified Galaxy with the EQ installed. That's an example of what you can do with a CB rig if you are truly motivated. There is a growing trend among some circles toward trying to sound more like broadcast stations. There are a few notable operators out there like Bassmaster, Motormouth-Maul, and a couple of others who have the gear and have modified their rigs to sound much more like the AM guys on the ham bands, and broadcasters. All it takes is know-how, and money. But as far as CRR is concerned, we're more concerned with reliving the 60's & 70's CB experience. Some of those guys are just using the CB to generate the frequency and the carrier. The modulation is completely outboard, and it is fed back in to the driver and final transistor on the CB radio. Unfortunately that extra audio frequency bandwidth can easily exceed the assigned 10 kHz channel bandwidth. A 20 kHz audio signal times 2 equals 40 kHz of AM bandwidth. That is four CB channels. I heard Mustang 131 in California using his extended audio bandwidth to play music on channel 19 a few weeks back, and I heard him from five channels away. His signal was only S9, and that is not near enough to overload the selectivity on that receiver by itself. This is a video someone made of Mustang 131's bandwidth coming in skip. Check the audio bandwidth. The AM transmitted bandwidth will be twice that. www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKspCLH0sAsI had the recent pleasure of exchanging E-mail with the guy who helped Motormouth Maul design his "Mauldulator". We went back and forth a few times on how the thing worked, and the fact that, like you pointed out, most of the audio processing is done outboard of the rig itself, and then re-inserted via the regulator/modulator transistor. I really like how the Galaxy radios do their modulation. It is so simple and easy to wideband. My 2547 will easily pass upwards of 10 Khz, nearly flat without the EQ. I usually keep the 15Khz adjustment on my EQ turned all the way down, since there is no point in putting out stuff outside the normal bandwidth of a radio, but I could if I wanted to. I like to run my bandwidth from 60 Hz to about 5 Khz. That's usually enough for great sounding voice. It's not like I'm broadcasting music where I need 15+ Khz to reproduce cymbal crashes etc. Yea, it's a bit excessive to run up to 20 Khz. There's no legitimate need, and most adults can't even hear that high in frequency anyway. and it's inconsiderate of other ops on nearby channels.
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,250
Member is Online
|
Post by Sandbagger on Nov 21, 2014 19:36:18 GMT -5
Well, the goals of the AM crowd on ham radio and the CB crowd are very different. Most of the hams who run AM want to sound like broadcast stations and have a rack full of audio processing gear including EQ's, compressors, asymmetrical modulation, and a studio microphone with a bandwidth that runs from 20 - 15,000 Hz to achieve that goal. CB'ers aren't typically as sophisticated. They just want something that sounds impressive. And usually the sound that most go for is that pooched midrange, "punch-through-the-noise", with a degree of hollow room acoustics, presence. The biggest problem is that not all radios have the same bandwidth. That's why some seem to sound better with a D104, while others are far more natural sounding with a Turner +3 or Super Sidekick. Back in the 70's we pretty much took what we got and did our best to make them work. The other thing is that the FCC's tighter regulations which took effect in the mid to late 70's changed the specs for audio bandwidth. Older 60's and early 70's vintage tube rigs often allowed audio response down to 100 hz or a little lower. This gave those rigs a warmer fuller sound. Newer rigs fall off rapidly below 300 hz, which makes the audio sound "thin". That's why rigs like the Regency imperial, the Hy-Gain 623, the Trams, etc have the nicest full bodied modulation. I'm torn between my love of higher fidelity audio, and my desire to keep my vintage rigs as they were when they were manufactured. If the rig sounds acceptably well in its stock configuration, I'll leave it alone. If it's one of those rigs that has a "tinny" thin sound, I will extend the bottom end a bit to make it sound fuller. I'm sure you've heard my modified Galaxy with the EQ installed. That's an example of what you can do with a CB rig if you are truly motivated. There is a growing trend among some circles toward trying to sound more like broadcast stations. There are a few notable operators out there like Bassmaster, Motormouth-Maul, and a couple of others who have the gear and have modified their rigs to sound much more like the AM guys on the ham bands, and broadcasters. All it takes is know-how, and money. But as far as CRR is concerned, we're more concerned with reliving the 60's & 70's CB experience. You are totally right about the bandwidth limitations on the CB rigs, SB. Ham's get to use 10-KHz of spectrum without the SSB guys complaining too much, and that gives them a lot more headroom to play around with their audio characteristics for sure. With the FCC clamping down on things with tighter restrictions, it's a wonder in and of itself that you guys can have decent audio on AM. I'd also be torn between high fidelity and messing around with a vintage piece of gear. Personally, I'd do what you are doing, leaving most (if not all) of them alone, for the most part. An EQ on those rigs will probably solve a lot of the problems as well, should they exist, although I'm pretty sure you are already doing this, SB. I have heard your modified Galaxy many, many times, SB. I listen to a new (to me) videogate just before I'm going to take a nap, and I think there might be only 3 or 4 of them I've not heard yet . I usually fall asleep to them, and most of the time I have to rewind to the point were I dosed off to hear the rest of one . Sometimes it takes me a few days to watch an entire video because of this . Anyway, your Galaxy rig sounds fantastic on SF's rigs! The frequency response coming through the videos is awesome on 441's rigs. Hmmm. Next gate, would you mind using your Galaxy and asking 441 if he could use one of the newer bandwidth-limited rigs? I'm curious to see what you can pull off with that kind of situation for sure. That's already happened. And on this gate the Galaxy doesn't sound nearly as good through the small speaker and receiver bandwidth limitations of the Cobra radio Pete was using. I like to bring the Galaxy out when I know Pete is using the Hallicrafters. That way I know it's going to sound impressive. But that underscores a very important point. Having extra transmit bandwidth is wasted if the receivers can't pass it.
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,250
Member is Online
|
Post by Sandbagger on Nov 21, 2014 19:54:53 GMT -5
Stock Mic Night was undoubtedly one of the better CRR's. Thanks again for the gate. Stock Mic Night had me digging in the drawer for a stock coffin mic that worked. I went thru three or four before I found a couple that worked. I noticed Spitfire wasn't reaching for the AF Gain as much due to the more level audio playing field We'll have to do more "theme based" CRR's this winter. We still have yet to do the mobile CRR. Maybe we can do a walkie-talkie night, and a less than 23 channel night, and maybe even an SSB night......
|
|
|
Post by ab5ni on Nov 21, 2014 21:05:38 GMT -5
Stock Mic Night was undoubtedly one of the better CRR's. Thanks again for the gate. Stock Mic Night had me digging in the drawer for a stock coffin mic that worked. I went thru three or four before I found a couple that worked. I noticed Spitfire wasn't reaching for the AF Gain as much due to the more level audio playing field It was the most awesome videogate EVER!!! . I really, really enjoyed everyones' audio!!! . I nearly wet the bed while laying down for a nap while listening!! . I think your audio and SB's Tram audio sounded so perfect, the definition of perfect has been redefined for all time!!! 73, Randy AB5NI
|
|