John,
What program do you use to control your 2000?
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 08:12
Subject: Re: R-2000
> the fact you're listening on a computer is your whole problem. There are
>> audio settings coming in to play there so you have no clue what you sound
>> like, and the stock mics on the newer kenwood radios sound like pure crap
>> always. The TS-2000 is one of the best sounding radios out there and it
>> doesn't take much of a mic to get the good sound out of it. I actually
>> got
>> a program to alter the user setting on the EQ which I like for the
>> receive
>> but actually lately what I've run is the MC-60 or a shore 526 mic, with
>> the radio on the conventional setting and people say I sound the best I
>> ever have. The TS-480 sounds alright but I've never heard one with stock
>> settings I cared for, you can mess with the user setting though and
>> customize it and actually widen the radio out a little like you can with
>> the TS-2000 and make it sound good but it just won't have the fidelity.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Colin McDonald" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 8:58 PM
>> Subject: Re: R-2000
>>
>>
>>> does the 480 have better tx equalization options than the ts2000?
>>> the 2000 just has the presets which all sound pretty crappy to me and a
>>> bunch of guys that I did in depth tests with...i had them all record my
>>> audio direct into a computer with no equalization on their received
>>> audio
>>> and in wav format...and then emailed to me.
>>> I found that the only setting that sounded good with any microphone I
>>> tried
>>> was the default or off setting...the rest just seemed to lack something.
>>> I
>>> tried the stock microphone, the MC47, turner plus3, a shur sm58, shur
>>> SM858B
>>> and a couple other dynamic studio microphones.
>>> I did download a program once where you could get into the "User"
>>> settings
>>> of the tx eq on the 2000, but the software was very unscreen reader
>>> friendly
>>> and I couldn't taylor the audio...it was a 7 band eq with shelving
>>> filters
>>> and all sorts of stuff, but sadly unusable by me.
>>> So perhaps the presets or tx audio EQ in the 480 are better than the
>>> ts2000's presets.
>>>
>>> 73
>>> Colin, V A6BKX
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Steve Forst" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 6:02 PM
>>> Subject: Re: R-2000
>>>
>>>
>>>> Lou,
>>>>
>>>> Tnx and I'll let you know. I'd be interested in getting the TX EQ
>>>> sound
>>>> as
>>>> good as possible. I have several options to choose from and while
>>>> the
>>>> TX
>>>> monitor is nice, it doesn't really tell what the other guy hears. My
>>>> brother was just here and installed the voice thing for me. Next time
>>>> he
>>>> is
>>>> here we will get the filters installed.
>>>>
>>>> Just got a card from an OO, which I wasn't too happy about, until I
>>>> found
>>>> it was a "Good Operator Report" with compliments on my signal and
>>>> operating
>>>> skills in the WPX SSB a few weeks ago. That 2000 has always sounded
>>>> super
>>>> on the air and I'd like to get the 480 at least in the same ball park.
>>>>
>>>> 73, Steve KW3A
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Lou Kolb" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 5:53 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: R-2000
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Steve,
>>>>>
>>>>> You've always pounded in here on 40 and especially 80. If you need an
>>>>> audio
>>>>> report or evaluation with that thing, let me know and we can get on
>>>>> some
>>>>> time. Congrats and good luck with it. Lou
>>
>
|
