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.