Well I changed the subject line since things have moved away from Howard's
original question on a R-2000 receiver.
The 480 has 2 high boost settings, 2 bass boost settings, a conventional
setting, and another one called F boost or something. And of course the
off position. Also a user defined setting.
I guess beside the microphone, the other factor in the equation is your
voice. Mine is kind of deep and with a lot of on the air testing I found
that setting the 2000 to high boost gives the best results with my voice
and the heil Gold Line mic. I've gotten a large number of unsolicited
reports of great audio this way. Even got an e-mail once from a guy who
was just listening and wanted to tell me how good it sounded. On the
other hand, I once made a mistake and slipped it into bass boost and nobody
would answer my CQ's. Finally someone told me that I was so low that
nobody could understand me. That's when I started using the TX monitor all
the time.
On the 480, just listening to myself with the monitor, I know that either
"off", one of the high boost settings, or the conventional setting is going
to be the one, again using the Gold line. The bass boosts, and the F boost
all sound very bad.
The 480 also has a user defined setting, but unlike the 2000, I think this
can be changed in the free Kenwood control program. I used this software
over the weekend, and while I didn't mess with these settings, the program
as a whole seems JAWS friendly.
Of course the other difference is TX bandwidth. Always ran the 2000 at 3
khz, while the 480 can only go to 2.4 or 2.6. Don't remember off hand
which it is.
73, Steve KW3A
----- 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
>
|
