|
Post by Oil2Gas on Jun 13, 2012 17:43:15 GMT -5
Hey Guys I am making a change on my base set up and need some advice prior to me bidding: thanks Sir again i am here looking for opinions: Which of these two radios would you buy if they both work? Courier 23 and Regency Range Gain ll? be aware there is a 100 dollars diff in money between the two But which every i buy will replace(home base) the GTX 2300 (clean and sounds good) that runs with a messenger M175 amp? Will be wiating for your opinon so i can start bidding ...again Big Thanks for sharing your knowdledge with us newbies that are trying to sound good and not splatter the frequency? Tell me which of the two above radios are the best of the two and will work with my M175 amp. again thanks oil2gas in south texas
|
|
|
Post by "Doc"Hammer on Jun 13, 2012 18:33:21 GMT -5
Actually, you couldn't go wrong with either one...If it was me and money wasn't an object, I would go for the Regency. Range Gains always seem to bring high prices and the ones I've been privileged to hear have outstanding audio quality on the transmit side. Although I'm a Tram person, I have a decent old Regency Romper and I like the receive on it; great sensitivity which seems to be a Regency thing on the tube sets.
|
|
|
Post by spitfire441 on Jun 13, 2012 19:45:32 GMT -5
Me, I'd say go for the Regency. I am of course biased. I love the way the make audio, like no others w/ push pull 6AQ6's. They are reduced carrier AM radios. You won't see a lot of dead key power with these radios. You will see about 2.5 watts DK, swing to about 10-12 watts with lots of audio. I own A Range Gain, Range Gain II, Imerial and Imperial II, Love 'em.
|
|
|
Post by Oil2Gas on Jun 13, 2012 22:21:17 GMT -5
thanks and with Range Gain ll low DK and great swing with lots of modulation hopefully it will take care of my M175 problem(no swing wattage)( on separate question in the amp section)? Again thanks again for the great feedback and hope to be the owner of a the regency range gain ll in near future thanks and have a good Fathers Day guys and be sure and pick up the bill Oil2Gas
|
|
|
Post by zman on Jun 13, 2012 22:22:51 GMT -5
Nothing wrong with Regency radios. ;D They made some good stuff back in the day. I have a CR 142 base that has awesome receive and decent transmit....
|
|
|
Post by cbrown on Jun 14, 2012 8:44:02 GMT -5
I'll add my vote for the Regency. Nothing wrong with the Courier mind you, but if I had to pick one it would be the Regency.
|
|
|
Post by Oil2Gas on Jun 17, 2012 10:29:43 GMT -5
Hey Guys Big thanks for your opinions and have decided on the Regency but not the Imperial but the Ranger Gain ll and HE tells me its in almost mint condition, photos look great and spotless inside teh case. Did say that it was one of his daily talkers that he will take out of sevice. sounds good and hope no regrets Any opinions on what mic to use with RGll? thanks OIL2GAS in South Texas Home of The Spurs
|
|
|
Post by cbrown on Jun 18, 2012 8:34:36 GMT -5
With the Range Gain II you can't beat a G Stand Astatic with a D-104 head.
|
|
|
Post by ab3nk on Jun 18, 2012 9:05:53 GMT -5
Well, actually you can beat the D 104 with a Heil Goldline mic. The D 104 head was ok when amplitude modulation CB - tube type radios were made 40 years ago. But the technology has changed and today it is possible to get studio quality audio out of even a old CB radio with a good microphone and a mixer board. The D 104 had a inherit flaw - it had no bass, lot's of highs and the only thing it did better then the stock mic - besides look cool was amplify the audio - which made it appear louder to the other people on frequency. home.comcast.net/~esprepair/d104.htm
|
|
|
Post by "Doc"Hammer on Jun 18, 2012 11:31:16 GMT -5
Well, actually you can beat the D 104 with a Heil Goldline mic. The D 104 head was ok when amplitude modulation CB - tube type radios were made 40 years ago. But the technology has changed and today it is possible to get studio quality audio out of even a old CB radio with a good microphone and a mixer board. The D 104 had a inherit flaw - it had no bass, lot's of highs and the only thing it did better then the stock mic - besides look cool was amplify the audio - which made it appear louder to the other people on frequency. home.comcast.net/~esprepair/d104.htmGerry: Where do you come up with this stuff ? You obviously have no experience in the "Regency" department. ACTUALLY that Regency will sound quite excellent with a G-stand D-104! Thats what I use with my Romper. It is crystal clear, and DOES have a hint of base, but sounds as good as both of my Trams! I don't own a preamplified D104. The Regency is Plate modulated as well. (Correct me if I'm wrong here Spitfire, Sandbagger or some of you other Regency owners! )There is absolutely zero need for any type of "mixing" board unless you just have to be PERFECT! I'm sure there's other mikes that sound good on them too, but my experiences with a G-stand on my Regency have proven it is the best mike for my radio, and I have been on the receiving end of it's transmit more than once. (One time was from 5 states away!) ;D
|
|
|
Post by Night Ranger on Jun 18, 2012 12:41:41 GMT -5
The D 104 had a inherit flaw - it had no bass, lot's of highs and the only thing it did better then the stock mic - besides look cool was amplify the audio - which made it appear louder to the other people on frequency. home.comcast.net/~esprepair/d104.htm Actually the Astatic D-104 desk microphone has plenty of bass. In most CB radios what limits the base is not the D-104. It is the value of the coupling capacitors in the microphone preamp circuit inside the radio. Most CB microphone preamp circuits use a 0.022 uf or similar value ceramic disc capacitor to shape the bandwidth of the transmit audio. The first capacitor usually occurs in series on the input side of the first amplifying transistor. At a value of 0.022uf or similar the capacitor shaves off the bass response of the incoming microphone audio, and it only allows the mid-range and higher frequencies to pass. There is usually a second coupling capacitor between the first and second amplifier stage that also limits the audio bandwidth. You can greatly increase the transmit audio bass response on these radios by replacing these two coupling capacitors with a 0.1 uf capacitor. Moving to a greater value like 1 uf usually makes the radio sound too bassy on transmit. On some CB radios the microphone preamp circuit and the audio amplifier on the receiver output to the speaker are the same circuit or share many of the same components. On these radios changing the value on the coupling capacitors may also add more bass to the receive audio coming out of the radio's speaker depending on their placement in the circuit. This is a schematic of a Midland 77-830. www.shadowstorm.com/cb/schematics/Midland-77-830-manual-schematic.jpg If you follow the audio signal from the microphone on pin 1 it will lead to a 0.022 uf coupling capacitor (C81) and then another 0.1uf coupling capacitor (C83) just before pin 6 on the TA-7205p audio chip. In this radio the TA-7205p audio chip also servers to drive the radio's speaker on receive, but on AM transmit the output from the TA-7205p is what modulates the carrier. The bass response on transmit can be increased by changing the 0.022uf capacitor to a 0.1 uf capacitor. If memory servers me pins 4 and 5 on the TA-7205p chip may also be used as a sort of fixed tone control for the chip by connecting various value capacitors. In the Midland 13-853 schematic below the radio uses individual transistors in the microphone preamp circuit; www.shadowstorm.com/cb/schematics/Midland-13-853-schematic.jpgIn the circuit above the audio output from the microphone comes from pin 1 and is fed in to the base of transistor Q704. Just before the transistor is a audio shaping coupling capacitor at C706 with is 0.04 uf. The audio then exits the collector of the transistor where it hits a second audio shaping coupling capacitor at C711 which is also 0.04uf. The audio is then passed to the transmit audio frequency amplifier at C702. Replacing the two 0.04uf coupling capacitors with 0.1 uf capacitors will increase the bass response of this radio without changing the microphone. I have have taken several "trebly" sounding radios with D-104 microphones attached and made them sound like bassier tube radios simply by increasing the values of the coupling capacitors in the microphone preamp circuit inside the radio. No change of microphone was required. I get a chuckle out of people that buy the expensive studio microphones, equalizers, compressors, tube preamps and what not and then try to shove a 20 to 20000 kHz frequency response through a radio designed to transmit a 2.7 kHz or less frequency response. Even if they modify the radio to pass the extended bandwidth 98% of the receivers on the other end will shave off everything above 2.7 kHz and below 300 Hz when it enters the audio chain on the receiver. They are just wasting their RF and money trying to transmit audio frequencies that are outside of the bandwidth of most of the receivers that can hear them. Night Ranger
|
|
|
Post by spitfire441 on Jun 18, 2012 16:14:26 GMT -5
I am in the process of changing out the caps on my B&W in the audio chain. They use .001uF, I'll be replacing that with .1uF's. I am using an un-amped D104 and it already sounds sweet. Look for the on air debut of my 130 lb radio on wednsday night! D-104's sound perfectly fine on my Regency's. A Turner plus 2 also sounds good. On my Imperial I have a Turner 4540 ceramic SSB mic on it and there is plenty of bass response. People think it is a different radio as compared to a D-104. Me personaly I like the BIG BASE CB radio sound of a D104. Takes me back.
|
|
|
Post by ab3nk on Jun 19, 2012 11:46:02 GMT -5
Well, actually you can beat the D 104 with a Heil Goldline mic. The D 104 head was ok when amplitude modulation CB - tube type radios were made 40 years ago. But the technology has changed and today it is possible to get studio quality audio out of even a old CB radio with a good microphone and a mixer board. The D 104 had a inherit flaw - it had no bass, lot's of highs and the only thing it did better then the stock mic - besides look cool was amplify the audio - which made it appear louder to the other people on frequency. home.comcast.net/~esprepair/d104.htmGerry: Where do you come up with this stuff ? You obviously have no experience in the "Regency" department. ACTUALLY that Regency will sound quite excellent with a G-stand D-104! Thats what I use with my Romper. It is crystal clear, and DOES have a hint of base, but sounds as good as both of my Trams! I don't own a preamplified D104. The Regency is Plate modulated as well. (Correct me if I'm wrong here Spitfire, Sandbagger or some of you other Regency owners! )There is absolutely zero need for any type of "mixing" board unless you just have to be PERFECT! I'm sure there's other mikes that sound good on them too, but my experiences with a G-stand on my Regency have proven it is the best mike for my radio, and I have been on the receiving end of it's transmit more than once. (One time was from 5 states away!) ;D And your name is ? OH ya, I forgot - you are hiding behind a CB radio handle and can't tell me. 5 whole states? WOW! Just the other day, I was talking to some bung holes down in Georgia and Tenn with my 4 watt AM / GE Mobile and my Solorcon A99... No amplifier, no beam antenna. Maybe you know who I am talking about. Some psychotic idiot that keeps repeating himself saying Smoking, Smoking, Smoking hot .. Blah Blah Blah.... He kept saying that he was going to shut the radio off and was leaving the channel, yet he kept coming back for more. 4 Watts!
|
|
|
Post by "Doc"Hammer on Jun 19, 2012 12:11:36 GMT -5
You know something, Gerry, you have proven yourself to be an idiot several times in the last few weeks and now you have removed all the mystery. Yupp, 5 states away on a 40 year old 2 WATT Regency Romper and a GSTAND D104....that is an accomplishment, especially on a horizontal quarter wave dipole. There is no mystery about me...I don't hide behind anything. I was being polite in that post, but I didn't have to be. You are the kind of individual that no self-respecting ham wants to be. You have ZERO respect from your peers, because you can't behave older than your shoe size. How you ever got your ham licence is beyond comprehension. Out of ALL the forums you've been booted out of,(6 at last count) and the thousands of members from ALL those forums combined, I can tell what kind of respect your fellow hams think and have for you and it all totals up to ZERO! Now crawl back under your rock and resume eating beetle dung and leave me alone before you really piss me off! PS..Sorry Grumpy!
|
|
**GRUMPY**
Administrator/The Boss
Classic Radio Operator Olde Timer 8220 [/color][/center]
"The King of Ping"
Posts: 4,342
|
Post by **GRUMPY** on Jun 19, 2012 12:48:12 GMT -5
Gerry: Where do you come up with this stuff ? You obviously have no experience in the "Regency" department. ACTUALLY that Regency will sound quite excellent with a G-stand D-104! Thats what I use with my Romper. It is crystal clear, and DOES have a hint of base, but sounds as good as both of my Trams! I don't own a preamplified D104. The Regency is Plate modulated as well. (Correct me if I'm wrong here Spitfire, Sandbagger or some of you other Regency owners! )There is absolutely zero need for any type of "mixing" board unless you just have to be PERFECT! I'm sure there's other mikes that sound good on them too, but my experiences with a G-stand on my Regency have proven it is the best mike for my radio, and I have been on the receiving end of it's transmit more than once. (One time was from 5 states away!) ;D And your name is ? OH ya, I forgot - you are hiding behind a CB radio handle and can't tell me. 5 whole states? WOW! Just the other day, I was talking to some bung holes down in Georgia and Tenn with my 4 watt AM / GE Mobile and my Solorcon A99... No amplifier, no beam antenna. Maybe you know who I am talking about. Some psychotic idiot that keeps repeating himself saying Smoking, Smoking, Smoking hot .. Blah Blah Blah.... He kept saying that he was going to shut the radio off and was leaving the channel, yet he kept coming back for more. 4 Watts! If you weren't such a smart ass you would see his amateur call in his signature. But you would rather be a smart ass!
So I am going to do what I wanted to do from the very first post you made on my forum. But out of the kindness of others they wanted to give you a chance. GET THE f**k OUT OF MY HOUSE... AB3NK, YOU WHINY LITTLE PRICK!!!!
|
|
|
Post by swamp40 on Jun 20, 2012 6:54:40 GMT -5
Just to give YA'LL a touch of history: I grew up on the North East side of "INDY" about 5 miles from "REGENCY" and was well acquainted with "TEX" who was the Daddy of the "Range Gain & "Imperial" series. "Tex's" original plan was to "Pilot"the Range Gain as strictly an AM rig , double sideband reduced carrier Xmtr and then do single sideband on the "Imperial" line but the bean-counter's at Regency didn't want to put the money into such a design. SSB on a CB rig was a big thing back then ($$$) , Regency made the decision to just add a BFO to the receiver on the Imperial and bias the Xmtr down th further reduce the carrier to very near nothing , hence a sideband rig , double sideband ,, but sideband . There was also an "AFTER MARKET" conversion to the Range Gain to make it do what the Imperial would do, I believe "TEX" had a great deal to do with this also but it was not an "OFFICIAL" conversion or up-grade, although if a "converted Range Gain" came back to the plant for repair they did the work without ripping out the conversion (treated it like it was an Imperial). Regency did make a "Single Sideband" rig some years later (after "TEX" retired) but that was when they made the change to transistor equipment and it never really took off . Like Tom , I'm a Tram fan , but alway's thought they fell short on the "Titan II " by not going for true SSB on it. Back then , of the tube rig's available, the "General SB-72" was the prize (BIG $$$) but true SSB. 73, John
|
|
|
Post by cbrown on Jun 20, 2012 8:34:44 GMT -5
If you weren't such a smart ass you would see his amateur call in his signature. But you would rather be a smart ass!
So I am going to do what I wanted to do from the very first post you made on my forum. But out of the kindness of others they wanted to give you a chance. GET THE f**k OUT OF MY HOUSE... AB3NK, YOU WHINY LITTLE PRICK!!!! I think everyone deserves a second chance, but this clown really just doesn't play well with others. I applaud your decision, it was the right move. Besides, the only thing he seems to do with people's calls is yell that he is going to report them to the FCC (for what I have no idea) when they disagree with him.
|
|
40sx
Mudduck
Posts: 39
|
Post by 40sx on Jun 21, 2012 5:53:36 GMT -5
For some unknown reason, I couldn't find WB3NK call sign on the QRZ database. Is he really a HAM operator or was he thrown out of that too?
Dennis
|
|
|
Post by BionicChicken on Jun 21, 2012 6:55:13 GMT -5
40sx, AB3NK ought to get you where you want to be.
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,245
|
Post by Sandbagger on Jun 21, 2012 8:06:27 GMT -5
Just to give YA'LL a touch of history: I grew up on the North East side of "INDY" about 5 miles from "REGENCY" and was well acquainted with "TEX" who was the Daddy of the "Range Gain & "Imperial" series. "Tex's" original plan was to "Pilot"the Range Gain as strictly an AM rig , double sideband reduced carrier Xmtr and then do single sideband on the "Imperial" line but the bean-counter's at Regency didn't want to put the money into such a design. SSB on a CB rig was a big thing back then ($$$) , Regency made the decision to just add a BFO to the receiver on the Imperial and bias the Xmtr down th further reduce the carrier to very near nothing , hence a sideband rig , double sideband ,, but sideband . There was also an "AFTER MARKET" conversion to the Range Gain to make it do what the Imperial would do, I believe "TEX" had a great deal to do with this also but it was not an "OFFICIAL" conversion or up-grade, although if a "converted Range Gain" came back to the plant for repair they did the work without ripping out the conversion (treated it like it was an Imperial). Regency did make a "Single Sideband" rig some years later (after "TEX" retired) but that was when they made the change to transistor equipment and it never really took off . Like Tom , I'm a Tram fan , but alway's thought they fell short on the "Titan II " by not going for true SSB on it. Back then , of the tube rig's available, the "General SB-72" was the prize (BIG $$$) but true SSB. 73, John Well it's certainly true that phase cancelled suppressed DSB is cheaper to produce than a balanced modulator & crystal filter SSB signal. Both the Regency Imperial and the Tram Titan II's, employed the same technique for generating DSB. We've noticed that the Imperial and Range Gain were virtually identical, with the Imperial having the BFO and associated circuitry for the receiver. Both rigs have great audio, and they were unique in that they did not dead key with more than about 2 watts, but they had 12 watts of PEP swing, which made for a great deal of audio punch. I have to cringe when people, not familiar with those radios, try to "peak" them up for more dead key. Noooooooooo!!!!!!!
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,245
|
Post by Sandbagger on Jun 21, 2012 8:57:07 GMT -5
Well, actually you can beat the D 104 with a Heil Goldline mic. The D 104 head was ok when amplitude modulation CB - tube type radios were made 40 years ago. But the technology has changed and today it is possible to get studio quality audio out of even a old CB radio with a good microphone and a mixer board. The D 104 had a inherit flaw - it had no bass, lot's of highs and the only thing it did better then the stock mic - besides look cool was amplify the audio - which made it appear louder to the other people on frequency. home.comcast.net/~esprepair/d104.htmGerry: Where do you come up with this stuff ? You obviously have no experience in the "Regency" department. ACTUALLY that Regency will sound quite excellent with a G-stand D-104! Thats what I use with my Romper. It is crystal clear, and DOES have a hint of base, but sounds as good as both of my Trams! I don't own a preamplified D104. The Regency is Plate modulated as well. (Correct me if I'm wrong here Spitfire, Sandbagger or some of you other Regency owners! )There is absolutely zero need for any type of "mixing" board unless you just have to be PERFECT! I'm sure there's other mikes that sound good on them too, but my experiences with a G-stand on my Regency have proven it is the best mike for my radio, and I have been on the receiving end of it's transmit more than once. (One time was from 5 states away!) ;D I realize that I'm late to this party but I have to stick up for Gerry a little bit with his claim of the D-104's frequency response. He's right about the mic not having a lot of low end. The mic's frequency response curve is hardly flat. It's only flat between 500 and 1000 Hz, and then it has a 10 db pooch at 3000 hz, followed by a sharp rolloff above 5000 hz. On the low end, it's 10 db down at 100 hz, so there's really no real "bass" response to it. But the D-104 mic was made for purely communication's level audio, and it fills that niche well. It mates up well with most CB rigs and that 3 khz "pooch" helps to punch through noise and interference, and that brightness is what most CB op's tend to prefer. Where Gerry goes off the rails is when he advocated using studio mics and mixer boards to achieve broadcast quality audio on a CB rig. The problem with doing this is that most CB rigs are audio bandwidth limited to a range between 300 to 3500 hz. So you can put a flat audio source into the radio and it will still limit the frequency response to the specs of the radio. You can achieve near-broadcast quality audio if you're willing to do some modifications to the radio to expand bandwidth. I have a Galaxy 2547 that I've experimented with. I added a 7 band graphic equalizer internally past the mic amp, which I also modified. The radio now passes audio between 80 - 8000 Hz. I'm currently using a Turner Super Sidekick mic with it and it does sound good. Someday, I'd like to pick up a studio mic to try with it. Of course, you can widen your transmit audio, but if the receive station has a tight I.F. filter, your higher end will get rolled off in their receiver anyway. That's one of the reasons why older tube rigs have such a rich sounding receive audio. They tend to pass a broader frequency response.
|
|
|
Post by cbrown on Jun 22, 2012 9:01:05 GMT -5
That is why Astatic made different plug in heads for their stands. If you can find a DN-HZ head and use it on a G Stand on your plate modulated tube radio, you'll be very impressed with the sound.
Jerry's problem (one of many apparently) is that he thinks Astatic just made a microphone called the D-104. That's pretty much a CB mentality right there. Astatic had a broad range of microphones stands and heads that you could choose from. For SSB work I really like the 10-DA, or if you were looking for the same sound curve as the D-104 you could use the ceramic 10C. Using the crystal T-3 gave you a range from 50-10,000 Hz. Thats why a lot of harmonica plays use it, if they can find it.
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,245
|
Post by Sandbagger on Jun 22, 2012 12:39:18 GMT -5
That is why Astatic made different plug in heads for their stands. If you can find a DN-HZ head and use it on a G Stand on your plate modulated tube radio, you'll be very impressed with the sound. Jerry's problem (one of many apparently) is that he thinks Astatic just made a microphone called the D-104. That's pretty much a CB mentality right there. Astatic had a broad range of microphones stands and heads that you could choose from. For SSB work I really like the 10-DA, or if you were looking for the same crystal sound curve as the D-104 you could use the 10C. Using the crystal T-3 gave you a range from 50-10,000 Hz. That's why a lot of harmonica plays use it, if they can find it. Yea, those that know, know that Astatic has been around since the 1930's, long before the CB band was ever thought of. They've made several different mic's for various applications. The idea that the D-104 is strictly a CB mic, is a very myopic view, since the mic predated the CB band by many years. The mic was designed for intelligibility through the noise. Today, hams refer to them as "contest mics". I'd like to find a 10-DA head to try. It's a far flatter response than the D-104.
|
|
|
Post by crazybob on Jun 23, 2012 0:30:20 GMT -5
I'm using an old golden, Bi-Centenial D-104 on the Kenwood TS-570D, that I acquired from Grumpy. The rig has a built-in TX EQ in it. I put it on base boost, with a touch of compression. It sounds great ob AM & SSB.
|
|
|
Post by cbrown on Jun 25, 2012 9:00:54 GMT -5
I'd like to find a 10-DA head to try. It's a far flatter response than the D-104. You can still find them, it's just a bit tougher. Astatic recognized that SSB users preferred the 10DA head and made a "Super Sidebander" edition that came with the 10DA installed. Let me know if you can't find one, I'll see what I can do.
|
|
|
Post by shiek on Jun 26, 2012 11:26:24 GMT -5
REGENCY is the way to go also is my opinion but another great old tuber is a SONAR FS-23 OR 3023. Still have one of those, the audio is great. Have to move the Mark 3 aside & plug it in every now & then.
|
|
|
Post by gator7 on Jul 9, 2012 7:38:55 GMT -5
This is why this site is so great. I was not aware of the head variables. However, I have found that changing heads has made a great difference in audio quality. So I was on the right track and didn't know it. thanks. 73's
|
|
|
Post by cbrown on Jul 9, 2012 9:21:50 GMT -5
A quick list of plug-in heads for the Astatic microphone base:
Crystal heads - D-104, D-2, K-2, T-3 Ceramic heads - D-104C, 10C Dynamic heads - DN-HZ, DN-50, 10DA Dynamic Cardioid heads - 77L, 811
|
|
|
Post by gator7 on Jul 18, 2012 16:47:59 GMT -5
Lots of good info here. I am sure it will be of use to alot of operators.
|
|
|
Post by Oil2Gas on Jul 26, 2012 19:32:13 GMT -5
Purchased two regency range gains and am selling after only three weeks with them BUT I DID UPGRADE TO SONAR FS 2340 in place of with a: Ken Tron Power RX amp and also included a d104 with tug9 stand . The tug 9 stand has a extra adjustable knob on top of base??/is this like a fine adjustment after i set the recessed screw slot underneath to 1/4 turn and then do the other knob? Need some info and the set up works he seller marked the adjustments9on amp and mic' with pen so i could at least get started.. Other question on the Ken Tron Interceptor power rx amp ? knob on left says 'ant' the right side says 'plate' now which is 'tune and load' and which do i do first and last for tuning the amp Thanks for all your help to a newbie and so far i have gotten some great reviews on dx and local qso's and new to this but am a fast learner
|
|