BLIND-HAMS Archives

For blind ham radio operators

BLIND-HAMS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG
Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
For blind ham radio operators <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 1 May 2010 19:37:16 -0400
Reply-To:
For blind ham radio operators <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
<C180ED69E3A049B6A2665BFED8966382@LouKolbLaptop>
Subject:
Re: Kenwood TS-2000 and MC-60A.
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
In-Reply-To:
<F2.CD.03384.D109CDB4@louvi-msg>
Content-Type:
text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
From:
Lou Kolb <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (67 lines) 
I think so too, John.  It's cleaner to my ear without it.  Lou
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: Kenwood TS-2000 and MC-60A.


>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.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2