I even think the mic sounds distinctly better without the preamp on. Even
without the RF and all, I think the tone is a bit better.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lou Kolb" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: Kenwood TS-2000 and MC-60A.
> Quite so, John. If you listen to the rig with and without the preamp, the
> difference is profound. As I said before, I've yet to see a rig on which
> it
> would improve things. and I agree with your statement concerning RF.
> The
> MC60 has enough RF problems as it is without introducing more. Lou
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 6:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Kenwood TS-2000 and MC-60A.
>
>
>> I've seen that preamp as nothing but a direct cause of RF feedback, I
>> used
>> to use it on my TS-440 before I knew better but now would never use it
>> for
>> anything.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Lou Kolb" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 6:02 PM
>> Subject: Re: Kenwood TS-2000 and MC-60A.
>>
>>
>>>I use that mic on the TS440 and I keep the preamp off. I've yet to see a
>>> situation where the pramp improved things. I doubt that the 2000 needs
>>> it.
>>> If it's working now, I'd leave it off. The 440 does provide power for
>>> it
>>> and perhaps the 2000 does too. On my model, there is an on-off switch
>>> for
>>> the preamp on the bottom of the stand. lou
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Rick" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 1:24 PM
>>> Subject: Kenwood TS-2000 and MC-60A.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi list.
>>>> I've been using the MC-60A on the TS-2000 without batteries, I was =
>>>> wondering if the mic needs the batteries, or if it draws power from the
>>>> =
>>>> radio for the preamp.
>>>> Thanks in advance for any help, and 7 3.
|