Being a ham radio operator I'd like to utilize some of my better
sounding mics with my transmitters. Problem is, a couple need more level
than your typical condenser mic puts out, and none have phantom power.
Granted one can buy an outboard phantom supply, that still leaves me
with the need for a preamp/compressor (possibly a channel strip type of
setup) piece. Question is: being that I'll be operating in an
environment that isn't and won't be exactly as rf clean as your typical
studio, what are some recommendations for equipment that is rf proof?

And please, don't someone tell me to use Heil mics, who have some mics
oriented for ham radio. Already have a couple and don't much care for them.
--
de Jack N2MPU FN20
Modeling the NYC/NYNH&H in HO and CP Rail/D&H in N
Proud NRA Life Member

Jack wrote:
Being a ham radio operator I'd like to utilize some of my better
sounding mics with my transmitters. Problem is, a couple need more level
than your typical condenser mic puts out, and none have phantom power.
Granted one can buy an outboard phantom supply, that still leaves me
with the need for a preamp/compressor (possibly a channel strip type of
setup) piece. Question is: being that I'll be operating in an
environment that isn't and won't be exactly as rf clean as your typical
studio, what are some recommendations for equipment that is rf proof?

Buy gear that is intended for the broadcast market. Call Harris-Allied
or Broadcast Supply West and see what they've got. Or call a used
broadcast supply place like Mooretronix and see what they have around.

And please, don't someone tell me to use Heil mics, who have some mics
oriented for ham radio. Already have a couple and don't much care for them.

They have a very dramatic sound to them.

Personally, I'd recommend using the old Turner communications mikes,
which are very distorted and buzzy sounding, because they have nonlinearity
built into the design to cause them to act like their own limiters. It
doesn't sound pretty but it sure comes across loud on the air and the
voice intelligibility is excellent.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Jack" wrote in message
...
Being a ham radio operator I'd like to utilize some of my better
sounding mics with my transmitters. Problem is, a couple need more level
than your typical condenser mic puts out, and none have phantom power.
Granted one can buy an outboard phantom supply, that still leaves me
with the need for a preamp/compressor (possibly a channel strip type of
setup) piece. Question is: being that I'll be operating in an
environment that isn't and won't be exactly as rf clean as your typical
studio, what are some recommendations for equipment that is rf proof?

And please, don't someone tell me to use Heil mics, who have some mics
oriented for ham radio. Already have a couple and don't much care for
them.
--
de Jack N2MPU FN20
Modeling the NYC/NYNH&H in HO and CP Rail/D&H in N
Proud NRA Life Member

dbx 286A
Symetrix 528E
Valley People
Airtools
Aircorp 500PH
Aphex 230
UREI (anything)
Behringer Shark

all usually work fine in the even the toughest RF environments (i.e.
broadcast studios located adjacent to an AM tower)

in fact most pro audio gear is pretty RFI resistant.

PS: Bob Heil says there a new sheriff in town

QRT

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Jack wrote:

And please, don't someone tell me to use Heil mics, who have some mics
oriented for ham radio. Already have a couple and don't much care for them.


They have a very dramatic sound to them.

Personally, I'd recommend using the old Turner communications mikes,
which are very distorted and buzzy sounding, because they have nonlinearity
built into the design to cause them to act like their own limiters. It
doesn't sound pretty but it sure comes across loud on the air and the
voice intelligibility is excellent.
--scott

Thanks much. Have a question you might be able to answer: what about EV
RE20 mics? They seem to be ubiquitous in broadcast studios. I just have
no real idea how rf susceptible modern mics are. I know I don't need
huge extended frequency response, just something that will come across
with excellent intelligibility. As added info, I do sometimes get close
to the mic, but I'm not a habitual mic eater. Distance varies from 6
inches to almost at the front of the mic.
--
de Jack N2MPU FN20
Modeling the NYC/NYNH&H in HO and CP Rail/D&H in N
Proud NRA Life Member

"Jack" wrote:

what about EV RE20 mics?

Where were you before yesterday? We just had a lengthy discussion
extolling the virtues of that mic. I don't know how you could have
missed it...



They seem to be ubiquitous in broadcast studios. I just have no real
idea how rf susceptible modern mics are.

I don't know either, but widespread use in broadcast studios would lead
me to *intuitively* conclude that... well, maybe I shouldn't guess.



I know I don't need huge extended frequency response, just something
that will come across with excellent intelligibility.

How will it be heard (I know nothing about Ham)? On less than ideal
playback systems, sometimes an ideal microphone is not ideal. Sometimes
it's better to have something with a presence peak to give it bite and
improve intelligibility. The RE20 ain't that. It's smooooth.



As added info, I do sometimes get close to the mic, but I'm not a
habitual mic eater. Distance varies from 6 inches to almost at the
front of the mic.

That's not a lot of variation so I wouldn't worry about it. However,
the RE20 is one of the most forgiving mics there is in that respect.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

"Jack" wrote ...
Being a ham radio operator I'd like to utilize some
of my better sounding mics with my transmitters.

WHY?

If you stay within the legal bandwidth and modulation
levels, you don't need a microphone that cost more than
$20 (or an $1 electret capsule if you are homebrewing).

Nothing good comes from high-"quality" (and parcicularly,
wide-bandwidth) microphones. Inteligibility is REDUCED,
and you are almost certain to exceed transmitting bandwidth
and modulation rules.

The context here is voice (AM, NFBM, SSB) communication
on narrow channels, frequently in low SNR conditions.
These requirements are practically opposite of the those
normally discussed in this forum (high-fidelity recording).

"Jack" wrote ...
Thanks much. Have a question you might be able to answer:
what about EV RE20 mics?

The RE20 is a legendary microphone. But for ham communication,
you'd be better off with a $50 mic and some decent audio processing
(limiting, filtering, etc.)

Jack wrote:

Thanks much. Have a question you might be able to answer: what about EV
RE20 mics? They seem to be ubiquitous in broadcast studios. I just have
no real idea how rf susceptible modern mics are. I know I don't need
huge extended frequency response, just something that will come across
with excellent intelligibility. As added info, I do sometimes get close
to the mic, but I'm not a habitual mic eater. Distance varies from 6
inches to almost at the front of the mic.

The RE-20 is a great announce mike. You can save yourself a little money
and get an RE-16 instead, though, since if you're chopping off above 8 KHz
you won't hear much difference between them.

You might also look at an old EV 664, which is a similar design, and
occasionally shows up cheaply (although not at hamfests any more... hams
seem to have discovered the things and are selling them for way more
than they are worth in the audio world).

None of these are going to be RF-sensitive. Really, no good dynamic
mike should be, although some dynamics can be sensitive to local magnetic
fields from trnasformers.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Jack" wrote ...

Thanks much. Have a question you might be able to answer: what about
EV RE20 mics?


The RE20 is a legendary microphone. But for ham communication,
you'd be better off with a $50 mic and some decent audio processing
(limiting, filtering, etc.)

Are you a ham and if not, what background do you have to make such
statements as you have in this thread? A better mic will definitely give
you a better transmitted sound. After all, garbage in=garbage out,
doesn't it? Gone are the days when any old mic would do on the bands.
--
de Jack N2MPU FN20
Modeling the NYC/NYNH&H in HO and CP Rail/D&H in N
Proud NRA Life Member

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Jack wrote:

Thanks much. Have a question you might be able to answer: what about EV
RE20 mics? They seem to be ubiquitous in broadcast studios. I just have
no real idea how rf susceptible modern mics are. I know I don't need
huge extended frequency response, just something that will come across
with excellent intelligibility. As added info, I do sometimes get close
to the mic, but I'm not a habitual mic eater. Distance varies from 6
inches to almost at the front of the mic.


The RE-20 is a great announce mike. You can save yourself a little money
and get an RE-16 instead, though, since if you're chopping off above 8 KHz
you won't hear much difference between them.

You might also look at an old EV 664, which is a similar design, and
occasionally shows up cheaply (although not at hamfests any more... hams
seem to have discovered the things and are selling them for way more
than they are worth in the audio world).

None of these are going to be RF-sensitive. Really, no good dynamic
mike should be, although some dynamics can be sensitive to local magnetic
fields from trnasformers.
--scott

I've seen a couple of 664's going for exhorbitant prices - way too much
to tell the truth. The reason I mentioned the RE20 is I have a friend at
work that's selling one (with the shock mount) for relatively cheap.
--
de Jack N2MPU FN20
Modeling the NYC/NYNH&H in HO and CP Rail/D&H in N
Proud NRA Life Member

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Jack wrote:

Are you a ham and if not, what background do you have to make such
statements as you have in this thread? A better mic will definitely give
you a better transmitted sound. After all, garbage in=garbage out,
doesn't it? Gone are the days when any old mic would do on the bands.


What is a "better transmitted sound?" Do you want a more accurate voice
sound? Do you want a deep full AM announcer sound? Do you want a distorted
sound that is much louder than anyone else and pops out dramatically in a
pileup? Do you want a sound that gives best intelligibility under high noise
conditions at the expense of being natural?

All of these are legitimate desires, and all require different things.
--scott
Definitely do not want a distorted sound that pops out in a pileup. Just
want to have an accurate sound that's pleasant to work without sounding
like so much of the crap on the bands these days (overdriven voice
processors and compressors in ham rigs that pick up every little sound
in the shack and splatter all over the band for 10's of KHz). Has to
have punch but not aggravating. Not so much the old AM announcer sound
but more of an FM announcer sound.
And yes, there are still a number of hams that work AM voice modulation.
Not all is SSB.
--
de Jack N2MPU FN20
Modeling the NYC/NYNH&H in HO and CP Rail/D&H in N
Proud NRA Life Member*

Lines: 70
Message-ID:
X-Complaints-To:
X-Abuse-Info: Please forward a copy of all headers for proper handling
X-Trace: mabncmnekmdohbabdbdpiflmbcekedmfhojhikkbagflhcbopc gopfpflmmkafbalpjkdigebcpgalpfkmplbaccadofkokheige kdeabgooaabhnpmeabjodngeolkacecedaecboklhfbccnpdjn lfiihalnbd
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 21:48:04 EST
Organization: BellSouth Internet Group
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 02:48:04 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.audio.pro:1229396


Jack wrote;
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Jack wrote:
Are you a ham and if not, what background do you have to make such
statements as you have in this thread? A better mic will
definitely give you a better transmitted sound.
snippage
Scott is indeed a ham as am I. More on that in a moment.

What is a "better transmitted sound?" Do you want a more
accurate voice sound? Do you want a deep full AM announcer
sound? Do you want a distorted sound that is much louder than
anyone else and pops out dramatically in a pileup? Do you want a
sound that gives best intelligibility under high noise conditions
at the expense of being natural?
All of these are legitimate desires, and all require different
things. --scott
Definitely do not want a distorted sound that pops out in a pileup.
Just want to have an accurate sound that's pleasant to work without
sounding like so much of the crap on the bands these days
(overdriven voice processors and compressors in ham rigs that pick
up every little sound in the shack and splatter all over the band
for 10's of KHz). Has to have punch but not aggravating. Not so
much the old AM announcer sound but more of an FM announcer sound.
And yes, there are still a number of hams that work AM voice
modulation. Not all is SSB.
SCott can definitely discuss that with you as I seem to
recall he works A.M. with some vintage gear.
I'd think for a mic you might like the re-20, especially
worked close.
I had the Heil built for Icoms with their power requirements
and all. It outperformed the stock Icom mics, but to my ear
was still a little brittle on the high frequency end of
things.
I still have the HEil, though I worked it on a regular mic
boom isntead of a table stand and worked it very close.

tHese days I'm using a Kenwood ts-440s with the stock mc50
desk mic. SInce the mc50 has a pretty good cardioid pattern
and I sometimes wander off mic when I"m controlling traffic
nets I run just a bit of compression. I set the gain etc.
so the alc isn't doing its thing however.

NOt sure about a pre, but I'd think something like the EV
re-20 with something like the rnmp RNc combo from FMR audio
might be neat for you. TO even get smoother compression run
the RNc in super nice mode feeding the preamp into one
channel, daisy chaining its out to the other channel's input
and the output of the whole sheebang to your transceiver.
scot could probably suggest other vocal chains.

I think there's a group of guys hang out in the advanced
portion of 20 on weekends that are all using regular signal
chains like you'd find in some quality voice-over studios.
THere's another group of guys on 40 meters I've heard in the
evening sometimes, I think lower part of the general phone
portion as well.

73 de nf5b




Richard WEbb,
Electric SPider Productions
Replace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real
email address.

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 14:48:17 -0500, Jack
wrote:

The reason I mentioned the RE20 is I have a friend at
work that's selling one (with the shock mount) for relatively cheap.

You also mentioned you wanted a mic with a hot output and you didn't
want a condenser. RE 20's don't have particularly hot output. In
fact they are lower output than many dynamics. I like EV 767's a lot
for a good dynamic vocal mic with a high output smooth response and
clear high end. You can get 767's for less than $150.

You are also concerned about the mic picking up RF. I've never heard
of a problem with a mic picking up RF, it's usually the preamps, not
the mic, isn't it?

Julian

"Jack" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Jack" wrote ...

Thanks much. Have a question you might be able to answer:
what about EV RE20 mics?

The RE20 is a legendary microphone. But for ham communication,
you'd be better off with a $50 mic and some decent audio processing
(limiting, filtering, etc.)

Are you a ham and if not, what background do you have to make such
statements as you have in this thread?

As a matter of fact, I am a ham. But this isn't a ****ing
contest. Even if I weren't a ham, the principles still apply.
(In all voice communication bands, not just ham.)

Perhaps you are too busy talking to hear the complaints
about the "lids" with the audiophile microphones splattering
"high-fidelity" voice all over the bands?

A better mic will definitely give you a better transmitted
sound. After all, garbage in=garbage out, doesn't it?

The purpose of ham bands is two-way communications.
Nothing more. Anything that accomplishes the best
method of getting information through difficult conditions
is a good thing. Anything beyond that is a waste at best,
and at worst, abuse of the bandwidth. A "high-fidelity"
microphone does NOT enhance communications. It
frequently makes it worse by transmitting frequencies
outside the optimal voice bandwidth (300Hz ~ 5KHz)
not only violating bandwidth and modulation rules, but
producing distortion in receiving equipment which has
been optimized for voice frequencies.

Gone are the days when any old mic would do on the
bands.

Gone also are the days when it took $50 to buy a mic
that would reproduce good communications-quality
sound. I hear excelent audio from many hams every
day coming from $1 electret capsules.

Julian wrote:

You are also concerned about the mic picking up RF. I've never heard
of a problem with a mic picking up RF, it's usually the preamps, not
the mic, isn't it?

It's a problem with a lot of poorly-shielded condenser mikes. Should not
be a problem with any dynamics (although magnetic field pickup from
big transformers can be).
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Lines: 75
Message-ID:
X-Complaints-To:
X-Abuse-Info: Please forward a copy of all headers for proper handling
X-Trace: ogjnolidcdijhjikdbdpiflmbcekedmfhojhikkbagflhcbokd bnhaljlladlliohpjgkneleeomndmogloofbcanbaigfmkejjj lddbdoicpbkhenimeefcoibhcfemggjejdfadobagbmhcnpdjn lfiihalnbd
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 00:06:19 EST
Organization: BellSouth Internet Group
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 05:06:19 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.audio.pro:1229670


On 2006-02-27 (ScottDorsey) said:
wrote:
SCott can definitely discuss that with you as I seem to
recall he works A.M. with some vintage gear.
Yes, but I'm not one of those crazy 40M AM guys that are into
wideband audio. "No Kids, No Lids, No Space Cadets." When I did
actually fire up the Hallicrafter rig with a mike, I'm using a
Turner communication mike that is anything but flat and accurate.
But it sure sounds loud!
I"m with you there. People forget that intelligibility on
ssb etc. sometimes means considering things acceptable you
might not for a studio microphone.

I'd think for a mic you might like the re-20, especially
worked close.
Or the RE-16, which is similar but cheaper. These are
nice-sounding mikes that come close to what the original poster
says he wants to sound like.
THat's what I"m gathering too. HE wants more full range
audio than he needs for workable comms, but for ragchewing
it sounds better. sInce he wants that sound without the
ambient noises creeping in means he wants to work it close.
ONe of these electrovoices could be worked close on a boom
stand and do him quite nice.

I had the Heil built for Icoms with their power requirements
and all. It outperformed the stock Icom mics, but to my ear
was still a little brittle on the high frequency end of
things.
I still have the HEil, though I worked it on a regular mic
boom isntead of a table stand and worked it very close.
The Heil has a gargantuan presence peak... it is very forward and
very harsh. Frankly, I think this is a great thing for a
communications mike, but it's not what the original poster says he
wants.
True enough, that's why I liked it as a net control station.
I also liked the ability to work it with a foot switch
easily. I don't run vox at my station.

I"m with you btw, no kids no lids no space cadets.

Brittle top end seems like a good thing to me, if it improves
intelligibility. If you don't want that, the RE-20/RE-16 avoids
that.
True enough, for chasing dx or net control it punches
through when conditions are as they were today on 20 meters.
I covered 2 hours of net control duty today on 20 and the
band was terrible.
SIgnals were poor enough I was a little bit glad of those
guys with their brittle top end. Isn't what I like for long
time ragchewing, but there again, horses for courses.

Actually, right now I am not a ham at all because I forgot to fill
out the renewal form. I need to get around to doing that before
field day.
Hey you can do it on line if you're a netscape user g.
Last I knew they didn't like ie. Had a friend do it for me
last time.

You've got a year's grace period from your expiration date
you know.

73 de nf5b



Richard WEbb,
Electric SPider Productions
Replace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real
email address.



Braille: support true literacy for the blind.

wrote:
SCott can definitely discuss that with you as I seem to
recall he works A.M. with some vintage gear.

Yes, but I'm not one of those crazy 40M AM guys that are into wideband audio.
"No Kids, No Lids, No Space Cadets." When I did actually fire up the
Hallicrafter rig with a mike, I'm using a Turner communication mike that
is anything but flat and accurate. But it sure sounds loud!

I'd think for a mic you might like the re-20, especially
worked close.

Or the RE-16, which is similar but cheaper. These are nice-sounding mikes
that come close to what the original poster says he wants to sound like.

I had the Heil built for Icoms with their power requirements
and all. It outperformed the stock Icom mics, but to my ear
was still a little brittle on the high frequency end of
things.
I still have the HEil, though I worked it on a regular mic
boom isntead of a table stand and worked it very close.

The Heil has a gargantuan presence peak... it is very forward and very
harsh. Frankly, I think this is a great thing for a communications mike,
but it's not what the original poster says he wants.

Brittle top end seems like a good thing to me, if it improves intelligibility.
If you don't want that, the RE-20/RE-16 avoids that.

I think there's a group of guys hang out in the advanced
portion of 20 on weekends that are all using regular signal
chains like you'd find in some quality voice-over studios.
THere's another group of guys on 40 meters I've heard in the
evening sometimes, I think lower part of the general phone
portion as well.

Actually, right now I am not a ham at all because I forgot to fill out
the renewal form. I need to get around to doing that before field day...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."