The AM Forum

A couple recent threads have touched on this subject so an informal poll might be interesting. Suppose this could be broken down into a number of categories like, no processing, mild or heavy processing, best suited for DX, best military etc but most folks probably have a few stations in mind that have their audio 'tweaked' just right.

No doubt a lot of subjectivity is involved here - not all voices are created equal, not all receivers are equally capable of clean wide bandwidth demodulation. Then there's the listener's bias and hearing deficiencies. But, if some call signs show up repeatedly maybe these folks would share information on their transmitters and audio chain setups.

This requires sticking one's neck out so I'll start ... BTW, receiver here is a Perseus SDR using 12 or 25 kHz bandwidth and sync detector.

K1JJ - clean (very low distortion) and well balanced (Class E slight edge over Fabio)

W1AEX - clean and well balanced

WA1QIX - same as above - room filling audio

WA1OXT - same as above - a bit heavy on the bass - impressive room filling audio   

I've noticed a good low distortion and well balanced signal entices me to stick around and listen when I might otherwise spin the dial ...

 

           

Matters more to me the content of the discussion and how interesting the other people in the QSO are.  I'm pleased to work guys using riceboxes or old mil rigs with carbon mikes.  It's all good to me.

Low distortion audio, regardless of the audio bandwidth, is undeniably MUCH more pleasant, and less tiring, to listen to.  The SE-3 stink detector is a big plus here.  And no matter what the other guy is running, if your receiver sounds like hell, even the best audio won't make much difference.

Kind of like broadcast station audio.  "HD Radio" hasn't taken off largely because 99% of the public couldn't care less about the alleged improvement in audio quality while program content still sucks and is not getting any better.

I like good voice quality on AM, but I also like good intelligibility through typical amateur band  conditions, and sometimes a compromise is necessary.  The best practice is to be able to adjust your audio to conform to band condx at the time. But wouldn't it be kind of boring if every station you worked had exactly the same audio quality?

Something I have observed is that people get acclimated to slopbucket audio.  I was tuning across the band one day and listened in on a few SSB QSOs.  Their audio sounded pretty typical slopbucket, with the grainy metallic voice and harsh piercing quality, but if the stations had been talking about something interesting I probably would have listened for a while and not given too much thought to the sound of the audio I was hearing. Then I imagined for a moment that I was hearing this audio from an AM station; it would have sounded not only extremely crappy and restricted, but downright bizarre! I would have told him right away that he had a severe problem with his audio. I have actually heard this sound in a few cases when a slopbucketeer was trying to get his rig to work on AM. Yet, slopbucketeers may listen to that same sound every day for several hours and think nothing of it, and even piss 'n moan about the fuller and more natural quality of audio they hear from the ESSB crowd (the ones who actually do it right).

Out of the box the old HT-9 with a quad of 6L6's has excellent fidelity due to its late 30's design before the space shuttle audio and the QST continual pushing for narrow bandwidth of the postwar 40's took over.

Maybe a question should be: Are there any postwar TX that sound good without mods?

Carl
KM1H

Jay,

Good topic, OM. You picked the stations I would have - and agree with the comments.

Some qualities have to do with the manner of speaking and of course voice quality. I especially like Rob/W1AEX's low key voice and his non-confrontational style of speaking. I could listen to him all day... ;D    In contrast, what I call "repeater audio" (and mannerisms) grates me to the point of having to spin the dial. I can listen to CB jargon and be entertained - but the audio gain cranked wide open with clipping, restricted repeater sound with the TV blaring in the background puts me over the top... ;)

To add a few things to your comments, let me use Steve/QIX as an example:

The "room filling audio" that Steve has is in one part because of the absolutely QUIET background he has. His signal can be against the pin and when he stops talking, you hear nothing - no hum, no noise of any kind. This is important. Of course, you need a big, fat carrier to pull this off or band noise will start to creep in and killl the quiet background. He also has a low end that goes down to DC with no phase distortion, transparent at all audio frequencies - like all class E direct coupled rigs. This permits him to run the opposite phase of most every transformer coupled rig. This produces a different "sound" in his low end compared to other rigs. The waveform looks different and so does the sound. I see it on my own class E rig compared to the 4-1000A plate modulated rig. I realize this is a debatable idea, but I have proven it to myself with my own phasing rig choices here.

In addition, Steve has a talent for adjusting his own audio in his own monitor. Most of us can't do this without some help from recordings, but every time he comes on with a new rig, he has it adjusted for his own voice near-perfect.  This cannot be overemphasized - tailoring the processing and EQing to ones own voice anomalies are the key to good sounding audio.

Steve also uses a well designed, well working homebrew 5-band audio processor that is transparent. I've recorded Steve in full high fidelity and often play it to visitors to the shack. It just rattles the room and jaws drop when they hear how good he sounds using a 100 watt stereo system with four large speakers in the four  corners of the ceiling/wall.

There are others. One station that stands out is Don/KYV. It amazes me how clean his rig sounds when using the several inter-stage transformers he does. Don certainly has mastered that technology. Don also has found the sweet spot for his voice in his audio EQing, etc. It is easy to listen to and very effective audio. There is no false bass and he accepts the way his voice sounds, which is very natural.

There's many, many more great sounding stations on the air, but I'll save those for others to comment on..


BTW, Jay, now that you’ve spent the time adding new audio gear and tweaking the system, I’d say your audio is the best I’ve ever heard it by a long shot. In the past it was rather bland – and was a little mid-rangie sounding. Now it has a big low end and room ambience like never before. Your voice, like mine, is average, but you finally found the right combination to get the big-boss sound there…

T

I'm with Johnny - I'll work pretty much anyone provided it's an interesting conversation, fun group, etc. I do enjoy the nice, crisp, clean audio of someone like a 'JJ or listening to G when the 21E was working into his phased array.

Thin audio gets difficult to deal with and tiring over time, but so does a monotonous, repetitious contact with someone who has broadcast-quality audio.

Half the fun to me is hearing the interesting rigs that show up on the air. Hearing WA2PJP using his 'new' Heathkit Injun station with stock audio is as cool to me as hearing K1JJ quiet the frequency with his rock crusher signal. As Don says, the variety helps keep it interesting.

Joe just doesn't do a good Tom Vu impersonation.  ;D

Yea,

 All Yuunns guyz zound good to the Zed.LR Station  :)

But with the new laptop I can make anyone zound good... :D

Yessum.

Jack.

I think there are two ways hams (not just AM but SSB ops) get into difficulty with audio processing gear not including obvious malfuctions like ground loops:

1.  The all knobs fully CW problem.   Not much to say about that--everything far far over done.

2.  The second problem is harder to nail down.  It involves a musunderstanding of what processing is supposed to do.  Basically it is supposed to level, and increase average audio power but within a tight limit of amplitude and frequency.  It is a misuse of audio gear to try to alter one's characteristic voice sound.  When  a ham tries to do that, he needs to contact the FBI and get what they use for folks in the witness protection program.  

Most everyone when first hearing themselves played back on a recording experiences a creepy feeling of embarrasment.  There is a real cringe factor and it can be pretty uncomfortable to hear yourself as others hear you if you are not used to it.  Often, there is an immediate reaction and it is to turn to the processing boxes and start trying to take a squeeky voice and make it sound like one of those guys who does voice over work for movie trailers.   Big mistake.  Processing boxes are not supposed to be used for that.   They can't or shouldn't be used in an attempt to get rid of nasal sounds, raspy sounds, no bass, or anything else that's basically a God given natural characteristic of our speech.   That doesn't mean these things should not be changed or can't be; it means processing boxes are not the tools to use.  

The first thing is to get used to hearing oneself by getting some kind of recorder and playback ability and doing some taping while working someone or reading some text etc.   Some voices have distictive characteristics that may at first seem bad but wind up seeming to be desirealble.   For example I think a lot of natural midrange adds to intelligibilty and is an advantage.   It may be disappointing if you want to sound like you have football sized gonads, but the guy who naturally sounds like he sings bass for the Oak Ridge Boys may have trouble being understood on the opposite coast.    Other sounds like excessive nasality may need the attention of a speech coach or therapist.  But really, processing gear is only there to set up levels, high and low cutoffs and density and peak limits.  That's about it.

Rob

The HT-20.

I subscribe to Dons Theory down with the audio and up with the Wick...

I also generally agree with the list (including Jay) that Jay W1VD posted, and I would also add Stu AB2EZ, and many, many more Northeast hams, & other area's.  Too long to list.


But, outside the Northeast, I too think Don K4KYV with his 2 mic's , his natural voice and whatever else he is doing with processing, has the most pleasing audio to my ears. Even in poor band condx, I can always hear almost every word, and could listen to him read directions on a paint can.  

32V series too, just shove a crystal D-104 into the connector and away you go. Early KW-1s are in the same category.

How about the trusty Ranger? Maybe not 'broadcast-quality' but not too bad out of the box.  ;D

Great audio

K3ZRF
W2VW (on many different rig over the last 20 years)
W3GD (awesome voice)


Interesting to listen to

W3DUQ
W8VYZ
W5PYT
WA1HLR


Great local and DX audio

K4KYV


I'm sure I'm forgetting numerous other notables.

My All Time Favorites:

WA3VJB   Clear, Crisp, and a great voice

W9AD      Always a pleasure to listen to and really smart with processing

W0VMC    I see all of your heads bobbing up and down! Robert has it in the bag

W9GT      Jack is the channel master here.

K3ZRF      Awesome

WA1QIX    Mentioned already

K1JJ        Always worth a dial spin

WA3HUZ, WA1HLR and ........

My list is much longer but those come to mind.

Out  where I live, I can't hear them to give a report.  Mike, WA5CMI and many others in the Southwest have great, understandable audio, a prerequisite for me.

Could put out a Poll for the most Heard...for me it's The Tron.

The Best Audio would have to be Don in my Receivers.


73

Jack.

Can hear the East Coast crowd in winter fairly well; right now, forget it, too many thunderstorms.

In my area, it's

K5UJ (Great Innovonnics Sound)
K4KYV
W0RQ
W1HRX
K0JM
K9AD
W1IA
K0JM
KA0ARA
W9AD
WA1QIX
K1JJ

Phil - AC0OB
 

What? No votes for 51 watts Fred? ;D

Phil, the check is in the mail!  ;D ;D  But seriously, it's sort of cheating when your "modulator" is a PC board microchip.  The real challenge will begin when I try to put an old tube rig on the air. 

The interesting thing that has come out of this to me so far is that we all have our lists, but they seem to be somewhat regional which reveals how with AM, you can have great audio but if you aren't strapping, a lot of people won't know most of the time.   Two hams I can think of immediately who have the signals to quiet the band noise so I can listen with a wide passband and speakers are Don KYV and Bill KD0HG.  Ditto for W9AD but he's about 20 miles away from me  ;)

Rob

Agree.  I visited Bob K1AJL once and it was quite the experience.  Gotta say he was congenial enough.  I love the concept of the power supply JS'd in the basement even tho' it flys in the face of safety and preservation of the fine iron he had.  It worked and it certainly elicited comments.

Wish I had had the presence of mind to take pictures

AL

The primary modulator matters a lot.   Some people just have great radio voices.

Out here you wouldn't get much of a fight if you picked No Money Mike's as the best sounding transmitter.  That's Mike Dorrough K06NM.  But you'd also get some votes for Sharon, K6IRD, -- better primary modulator.

 

Hi Jon,

A few of my favorites from out your way are.

WA6HDY Bernie

W9FGJ   Willis

W6BM    John, used to play "Amateur Radio News Line" on Wednesday's

And one other, call escapes me. He collects rare old cars and has a 16 mm movie theater in his home. Any idea who that is?

Be Different to have a Straight Mic night an see who's who.

No Processors No deessors No compressors no Junk and see
where we stand.

I would enjoy looking at all the sig's on the Analyzer.

73

Jack.

Bob's station certainly was unique. I never visited his station, but spoke with him often and found his description of the 2 x 4's on-the-floor (wooden tube holders) for the modulator in the basement to be priceless.

Thanks for the audio comments Jay and Tom!

I am told frequently that my transmitters sound pretty similar. (Except for the Pro III, but that's not actually an AM rig...) Tron told me a long-long-long time ago, that once you address your rig's audio deficiencies (as well as you can) with appropriate parts, that the next thing to do is to sweep the rig, and then adjust your audio for a flat response across your intended audio bandwidth. Using that as your starting point, add enough presence rise in the upper mid-range to give it some punch. Add only enough low end to make it sound natural, and then leave it alone... At any rate, I don't have any broadcast transmitters, so without exception, all my stuff needs some form of the "smiley look" on the EQ to actually produce a reasonably flat response from 70 - 5000 cycles. From there, each rig is a little different, but it's pointless to make changes until you've got it flat.

That's my 2 cents.

:O)

There are a lot of great sounding stations on the air that exhibit no over-emphasis in any part of the audio spectrum. Unfortunately, these are all east coast stations simply because I don't work many west coast, southwest, or mid-west stations, but this would be my short list, in no particular order:

W2XR Bruce - natural sounding, very loud and smooth audio
KD3CN Karl - clean, natural, and pleasant sounding station transmitter(s)
W1IA Brent - smooth and loud, very well adjusted audio
K1JJ Tom - exceptionally clean with a loud, strapping, muscle-radio sound
WA1QIX Steve - broadcast quality, very high average audio level with no artifacts
W1VD Jay - loud and natural sounding, very clean and smooth audio
WA1HLR Tim - loud and clean (well... except for the SBE) very natural sounding
K3ZRF Dave - Distinctive sound, clean with excellent presence
WA1SSJ Wayne - he sounds the same in person as he does on the radio, which is the whole point, I think...

From the past:

W2WAS Joe - Oakridge Boys voice with an 813 rig that could handle it.

My 2 c

Agree with Jon,  that No Money Mike,  KO6NM,   has a great voice and to me just about the best-balanced audio.

K6JEK, Jon,  your Class E rig has always sounded teriffic.  Wish we could hear more of you.  Your personality is a real bonus !

## EDIT: And not to leave out W6THW,  Mike,  very well balanced big signal.  His nice site:
http://w6thw.com/picture/k6glh.jpg

 Plus W6GLH Gary,  has always sounded great.  His newly Home-Brewed 450 X 450 rig has it all,  also sounds teriffic:
http://w6thw.com/picture/k6glh.jpg

 ...  Very difficult to stop adding others ##

And Mike,  Sam  W6HDU,  in Alameda,  CA, sounds great,  BUT,  I've not heard Sam for at least 3 years probably more like 4.

Yes,  Willis, W9FGJ,  also sounds teriffic.

Having a quieting signal IS essential,  and there are probable many who sound great,  but are not strong enough,  on average,  to make most people's lists ...  etc

Vic

Thanks Vic,

Yes, it was Sam W6HDU I was thinking about. I always enjoyed listening to and talking with him and the rest of the crew throughout the eighty's and nineties. I've been lucky enough to get to know a fair number of Western AM'ers and Eastern operators since moving from Northern California to Michigan in 1998.

Mike
EX WA6VTN

A straight mic night might be scary and not be able to recognize some of the ops.

Glad that the Left coast reported in. I have read of the audio from No Money Mike and would expect that he would be a mile marker, like Tron, and Don. He is an audio engineer. 

I did have a rare moment that almost had to be sched to talk to Bill KD0HG. If it wasn't for his well modulated,balanced audio, I would'nt have been able to have any QSO. It was a short one this past Winter on 75M. Condx weren't the best. But it was distance that made it a little rough.

Fred

I like the audio from W3GMS. Very pleasant to my ears. May be his natural voice, never met him in person so I can't really say.
Carl
WA1KPD

There's one guy who is a real "sleeper", who has some of the best audio on the band, and by far the most asymmetry (including mine - this guy's is better).

Frank WA3JBT - really CLEAN CLEAN CLEAN (no matter what he's using), good balance, LOTS of audio - major asymmetry.  If your detector is not top notch, you'll probably get some distortion, but I can say with absolute certainty, there is none being transmitted.

Bill KC2IFR also sounds really, really good - didn't notice his audio mentioned.  Bill also has an incredible voice and that really adds a lot.

Regards,

Steve

Thank your Carl--WA1KPD the checks in the mail !!
Regards,
Joe, W3GMS

Roger Roger Fred,

 I thought it would be interesting night  :)

You're Probably right...


Jack

I always thought that Captain Marvelous had a great sounding transmitter. You don't hear him on often these days ;D ;D

I never visited Blown-Away Bob at his QTH in Rutland, but he visited me 3 times.  Once when I lived in Cambridge, once while I was in Houston and once here.  That was also quite an experience. I talked with him many times over the air.  When he went SK I wonder what happened to all that audio iron.

"I carved this transmitter out of solid steel with my bare hands."

He may have had bi-polar disorder.  He was  congenial enough, but he  had a nasty side that he could flip over to unexpectedly.  No problem when you were in conversation with him over the air, but when  he was a guest in your house it could be a different story.

No need for a check Joe. Like Popeye "I knows what I like". K1VYU likes it too.
Sorry we did not meet at Nearfest, though I am sure you walked by the table. Maybe next time.
73
Carl

i have the best audio!
you just cant hear me

I have to agree. Joe has always sounded very good and in recent years excellent. He straps into my location on 160 meters. In the early evenings I can open up the RX bandwidth and really enjoy the audio.

Another excellent sounding station often heard on 160 meters is Tim, W3TIM. Check out the attached recording from this past winter.

I found a recording of W3GMS from 2008.

(http://www.gearfuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/real-life-popeye-untooned.jpg)

I witnessed those tantrums from Bob a few times on the air.  I have some of the minor ones recorded.  I found him quite entertaining, you never knew when he would freak out.  I liked the quality of his audio.  It sounded natural and had good presence rise for great clarity.  He was one of the kings of the long, old buzzard transmissions too. 

I am in agreement with the majority of the examples cited for good sounding stations.  But there was one or two mentioned in the list that I would put in the "good audio" category for communications "punch" but certainly not for low distortion, proving that it is all very subjective.  Some listeners have different ideas what "good" audio really is.  That's why it's impossible to please everyone. 

Eric

WN3B, Mike in Brookville PA.    I have not heard him for a few years ever since 40M went to long.    He uses a broadcast transmitter and won a
best sounding audio a few years ago during an ER Mag operating event.  I don't think he ever was on 75M.

Thanks Steve for the comments about my audio and for providing the mp3 clip. 

Concerning Mike--WN3B, he does have some great sounding audio.  It would be nice to hear him back on the air.  He is using a 1941 Gates 250C1 with a highly modified multi band RF deck.  I am fortunate to have the same rig, but its currently still on the broadcast band. 

Regards,
Joe, W3GMS       

Let's not forget Dave, W3NP and Jeff W2NBC.  Both strong, clear, full, and undistorted.

IMO, the Johnson Ranger I and II have pretty decent audio without any modifications.

Of coarse any vintage transmitter can be improved, but your right, some are better than others.  I always thought the Collins-32V2 and 3's sounded pretty decent stock.  Others that come to mind would be Rangers and B&W-5100's.  Of coarse KW-1's and the Johnson Desk KW's with the matching Ranger as a driver sound nice as well.  Johnson 500 sound pretty good out of the box as well.  In my opinion, the rig that shows the most improvement going from stock to being modified is the Heathkit Apache.  The modulation xmfr in the Apache is pretty darn good and getting rid of the stock driver xmfr along with some simple R and C changes really makes that rig stand tall!!
Saying all of that, I find it refreshing to sometimes here a stock unmodified rig.  We tend to forget how they use to sound since so many of the rigs have been modified.  I had a blast working Joe, WA2PJP several months back with his 100% rebuilt original Apache. 
Regards,
Joe, W3GMS     

That's the nice thing about the Military Net here on the Right Coast, Most if not all are stock and it's great to hear how they must have sounded in the day. When I was in the Army 1959  - 1965 most of the field stuff was FM. We did have the T-368 and the GRC-19's and one other jeep radio that was AM, but they never saw much use in my experience. We did a lot of RTTY & CW With the T-368 & GRC 19. I strongly believe that NOT everything needs to be modified. The problem here is that people want you to run equalizers and be hi fi no matter what it is. Not all my stuff is hi fi and as long as I own them, they will stay that way ;D ;D ;D

Which sounds better, carbon mic #1 or carbon mic #2?   :P

My votes:
W1VD
WA1QIX
K1KBW
K1JJ
W2NBC
W3GMS
N3IBX (on the 1938 rig)

73
Steve WA2DTW

The artist known as W2INR...smooooooth room filling audio at it's finest.

As to stock rigs that sound good, I remember in the 1970s Russ, WA2RII in Bernardsville, NJ, used to run a Johnson Kilowatt with the rare Johnson speech amp/audio driver (I can't remember if he had disabled the clipper, but if it was in the circuit, it was a minimal amount of clipping) and an Astatic JT-30 microphone.

And it sounded amazingly good.


With my best,


Kevin, WB4AIO.

Going down memory lane I remember when Joe had an 833A going. I don't remember what he used as a modulator. He didn't run it long but it sure sounded good.

Another rig was W2INR's old 4-1000 rig modulated by a pair of 833's. Someone who shares the title of the "Buffalo Book Ends" owns it. His name is Bill and that rig with his voice wins my vote as the all time best sounding tube rig. I'll agree that Garry's Collins was a good sounder as well. I think the only difference would be the voice of the operator. While Garry has a great sounding voice, Bill has that old time announcers voice. Today there is no such thing on radio as an announcers voice. They just want live meat.

Roger that! Here's INR from a few years ago.

http://www.amwindow.org/misc/mp3/w2inr6jan080406z3721.mp3

K3ZRF.

http://www.amwindow.org/misc/mp3/k3zrf28dec072230z3733.mp3

WA3JBT on 160 meters in 2008.

http://www.amwindow.org/misc/mp3/wa3jbt16nov082226z1885.mp3

Actually Terry, the rig was sold to Tom (KBW) and he sold it to Dudley W5DUD.That is where the rig is today out west. I don't recall Bill using the rig so I don't know how he sounds on it.

Thanks for the honorable mention Jay

G

I can't remember Bill's call. It's not the infamous other Bill that we all know.

There is a net that runs in the winter and starts on the east cost and goes out west. I think it's called First Wednesday. Bill?? was over at KBW's QTH and ran the net along with Tom. I think they did it twice and now it's hosted with someone in NC. This was back in 2003-04? It used to be that the host would change from time to time and it was nice when it was run by someone up here where I could heard them much better. No indifference meant toward the present host is intended  ;D ;D

Bill, K2LNU

Bill's station, circa early 90's.

G what happen to the 833 rig mod with 250Th's that you said you were going to build in a 1996 recording by W1UJR?

I agree. It's all good to me, as long as its clean and not distorted. Although, on a good night it's always a pleasure to open up the filters wide, switch to the big speaker and enjoy that wide freq response.

I add to the list:

Bill W3DUQ

Herb, K2JVM (what's his new call ? )  ^K2VH

Keri, KC2UFU

Jay, N3WWL -- he's got the LOWEST

Chris, W2JBL (the artist formerly known as WA2OMH)

Mike, W8BAC (on the 20V, whew !)

Buddly, WD8BIL (on the Viking Bud)

And must include "Cue Ball" Bob, W2ZM, here, as heard in Arizona:

http://www.arizona-am.net/OUTOFSTATE/W2ZM/w2zm_d.mp3

Notice how the S/N ratio isn't that great, but his AUDIO makes it ? Just what several here have mentioned.

Source:
http://www.arizona-am.net/OUTOFSTATE/W2ZM/index.html

This is the transmitter Bob used in one of the early Heavy Metal Rallies, holding fort for more than 10 hours, moving stations into the frequency throughout the night ...

(http://www.arizona-am.net/OUTOFSTATE/W2ZM/McMartin1_sm.jpg)

I'd like to add Ken, W2DTC to the list. Very clean signal with lots of modulation, a good voice, interesting to listen to and a full strap carrier that brings the frequency to it's knees. All the elements of success in one signal.   

We heard many of those mentioned and, perhaps several others that really sounded great during the recent AM Xmtr Rally and Heavy Metal Rally activities.  So-called "bass-rich" broadcast audio that many stations are well known for, is great to listen to under decent band conditions.  Unfortunately, during noisey or marginal conditions, that bassy sound is hard to copy.  It is during such band conditions that some of the stations with restricted and tinny sounding audio actually cut thru and are more copyable.  We are dealing with propagation which is not a constant and can vary all over the place.

I guess it all boils down to whether you are just trying to get thru or whether you are after quality that is pleasant to listen to.  Hmmm...most of the military gear used carbon mikes and restricted audio quality is/was the norm.  Maybe they were just trying to get the message thru, not too concerned with faithful reproduction of the operator's voice. 

I think, however, that for the most part, we can all agree that AM sure sounds better than SSB.

73,  Jack, W9GT

For awhile I was trying to create the worst sounding audio with hi end audio components. It not that easy to do.

You don't hafta cut out the bass or sound tinny to cut through the noise and QRM.  Just boost the highs with a strong, broad peak from about 2000~ to 3000~.  That will balance out the bass and make the signal more intelligible, plus it will get rid of the muddy sound of a signal that runs flat response all the way down to below 100~.

Most of the time, a "bassy" sound is not the result of too much bass, but the result of a lack of highs, and vice-versa.

You don't want any frequency range to grossly dominate in your response curve.  The energy content of the voice spectrum should be uniform, within a few dB, throughout the range with maybe a little emphasis on the upper mid-range.  That's the basic theory behind W2WLR's "Enhanced AM" (http://www.amwindow.org/tech/pdf/eam.pdf) and the peak in the frequency response of the D-104 and Heil microphones.

Some interesting discussion of frequency response and human hearing can be found at:

Fletcher Munson Equal Loudness Curves (http://www.webervst.com/fm.htm).

Psychoacoustics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics)

The particular final audio gear settings to obtain optimized response will depend much on a person's voice characteristics.  A few of us (like me) have natural mid-bassy voices which require the "S" EQ curve to suck out the ~110-300hz area. Into a stock, flat mike I sound muddy. Just like a custom fitting a suit, everyone needs a different matrix of audio (EQ/compressor-processor, etc) settings to have optimized audio for local hi-fi and quasi-DX AM use.  

How do we know we're there?  Recordings made from Flex-type radios sent to your computer is an excellent method of evaluation. Also, contrary to popular belief, I like to get a range of opinions from AMers I know have good ears. After a while, you will find that most will agree the audio is as good as it can be - they will all more or less feel it is a good compromise and say to leave it alone.  In the beginning of getting opinions, it is difficult due to the wild swings of opinion, but eventually you CAN please most ears. That's hard to believe , I know.

Then, as I mentioned before, there are a few who can use an off-air monitor to set their own audio curves precisely. This is a very difficult feat for many reasons, but it should always be followed up with recordings and opinions to be sure.

As an acid test, I usually axe a distant AMer (out 2,000 miles or more on 75M) if my audio is easy to copy for DX use. This works very well and has influenced my settings from time to time.

T

I dunno Listenen to some of the Flexy Sidbanders you'd think you were operating AM.

Hows my audio now, a little wider just a li'll maybe 5 Kcs  8)

Woof Woof.

73

Jack.

Tom

I try really hard to resist the temptation to give what my ears like - that's why I use the recording approach.  A few gifted listeners can give good on-air reports as you indicate.

Punch is equally important, I agree.  Last night, Bill, W1MPY had really punchy audio with no discernible distortion (I was using sync det).  Whatever he had -- it was on the money.  I like the balance between HIFI and punch

Al

Al -

I wish I listened in to you guys. Yep, punchy audio while still maintaining a clean, hi-fi sound is no easy task, but it can be done.  The bitch of it all is that our voices often change from day to day based on congestion, tension, etc. Compare a voice in the early morning vs: later in the day. Or, listen after mowing the lawn without a face air filter.

Because of these voice variations, I've had guys tell me I sounded different to the point of needing more bass - and then the next day my voice changed and I had to back the EQ lows down again...  ;D   That's when you're on the ragged edge of having an average voice - the guys with the great BC voices can run anything and sound good all the time... sigh.


T

<<<I think, however, that for the most part, we can all agree that AM sure sounds better than SSB.>>>

No doubt about it.  Like I've said before, an AM station with wx radio audio sounds better to me than a SSB station doing the ESSB thing.  It all has to do with AM transmitting the actual base band audio intact.

The problem with balancing low frequencies with high boost is that then to get all of it you have to have a fairly wide rx passband.  Well, on 75 in the evenings there is so much slopbucket QRM that is just not viable here.  I get the rx down to 5 KHz passband then tune off about 1 kc from carrier zero beat and that works fairly well, but if condx are rough, then anything audio below 100 Hz is a waste to me. 

I've looked at sw bc stations mod. envelopes on my IF tap.  Even with poor propagation and weak carrier they have detectable audio.  On the scope I can see that they run a hell of a lot of audio.  I can't tell how much pos. modulation they have but it is definitely asymmetric and probably very compressed.

I wish I had my wake up voice at night  :D  When I get out of bed I sound like one of those late night DJs, like Venus Flytrap on WKRP.  By the end of they day I sound like Mayor Daley, all squeaky.  I like da Maer, but he doesn't have a radio voice.

Someone sent me an audio clip maybe late last year, someone on the East coast.  That was cool.  It might have been you Tom--thanks.   Wait, you don't record do you?  Must have been someone else.   Maybe it was VJB.

I roll a lot of tape, and I remember when we finally had a QSO, so maybe so. It is so easy these days to get an aircheck, make it an email attachment, and send it off. I still have some 3" "Mission Impossible" open reels that the TimTron sent me of my station about 30 years ago, 3.75 ips, 2T mono.  You want a high thin voice? There I was.

They can sound real good on a R390A.

Find it interesting that some folks run a flat EQ curve while others run the 'smiley face'. Like Tom, if I were to run a flat EQ (using my PR40) I'd be the 'Mudman' for sure. While some of the difference can be chalked up to individual voices there's also the microphone frequency response ... and the combination of the two. For s&g here are plots of four mics commonly used on AM.

http://www.w1vd.com/miccomparison.jpg (http://www.w1vd.com/miccomparison.jpg)

note: graphs not to scale with each other

The differences are pretty dramatic when one considers that a couple dB change in certain bands of the 31 band EQ can make all the difference.       

What a great description! Ken sure does that.

I liked the performance B-1 Excellent Mic. very warm

73

Zed.L.R.

Knees are people too.... :'(

Thanks Dave,  looks like I'll have to cast one vote for myself.

73, Fred

Jay -

Those curves are really something to ponder. It shows the D-104 has a 20db! rise from about 100hz to 3K or so. Wow.


The B1 sure is pretty smooth and flat. The RE-27 appears to have a reasonably flat curve between the important freqs, but those 5db per division grids sure are compressed to make things look better than they are. But who's to say the B1 flat line is better than the engineered 20db rise on the D-104? Maybe it just means less EQing needed with the D-104  on some voices... ;D

I once heard QIX do an A/B  comparison between an RE-20 and B1. The B1 sounded better, though I can see now that it could have been simply the EQ setting were more optimized for the B1 at the time. IE, I'll bet the RE-20 would sound about the same as the B1 once the differences in curve were dialed out by the EQ.

As you said, when 2-3 db can make a big difference on the EQ, some of these mikes have huge curve variations in the 10's of db.

Either way, I'll stick with my RE-20. It's been the best mike I've ever used for over 10 years now and I have no desire to change it for AM or ssb use


("Mikes" are people too... :'(  )

T

Who's "they" the ESSB or AM?
Well the ESSB sound better than space shuttle but no matter what they do, there is a subtle characteristic SSB sound.  But, if you have the right rx and tuned in right, and the other guy produces his SSB with digital phasing (i.e. not narrow analog filtering) and has his audio just right with a decent frequency response (a lot of ifs that usually don't get pulled off) then it's pretty good but not natural like with AM.

Sorry I never got his call but he was excellent. The other guy talking to him sounded good but as I adjusted the receiver freq, he didn't sound as good as the other guy. Then the other guy started talking again to the other guy and at that point I again adjusted for the other guy to clear him up but then the other guy sounded off when he started talking again.

At this point some guys showed up at my door with some beers and we forgot all about those other guys ;D ;D

        WELL,


        Go figure.......

I think that, properly transmitted and received with appropriate frequency response, and with super-slow AVC, SSB has the potential of sounding as good as AM.

However, that potential is seldom achieved in practice -- both due to the inherent nature of AVC with suppressed carrier (it adds audio compression/limiting not present in the transmitted signal), and the difficulty of tuning SSB receivers so that the transmitted audio's harmonic relationships are perfectly correct.

Many people -- particularly older men, who constitute a large percentage of amateur operators -- have high frequency hearing loss. And huge numbers of people also have little sense of pitch, so having the natural voice harmonics not on harmonically related frequencies doesn't bother them at all. (It makes me cringe.) When an operator has both of these problems simultaneously, he'll often tune the other fellow's SSB signal in 100 or 200 Hz high so that it "sounds nice and crisp" to his atrophied ears.  Then the other station will retune so things sound "right" to him in his receiver -- and they walk up the band. Or, if they don't walk up the band, they sit on two different frequencies, so it's impossible to hear both of them correctly without retuning. Maddening!

The inclusion of higher frequency accuracy and stability in amateur SSB gear in the last decade or two has helped, as has a growing awareness of what good audio sounds like. But the problem still exists.

All these problems, including the AVC problem, could have been solved so easily by using a pilot carrier system, as HF broadcast feeders still use today. Technical Materiel Corporation and Kahn Research and probably others had working systems for sale in the 1950s. It was probably cost that prevented such systems from being used much if at all on the ham bands. But today it would cost next to nothing to add PLLs, add carrier-based AVC, and transmit -15 dB carriers on SSB.

It would make a huge difference in how SSB sounds. But some might object: The hams who have been taught (falsely) how wicked it is to ever transmit a carrier; the people who would resent it because their current gear wouldn't benefit; and the hearing- and pitch-impaired who would be very annoyed by having a radio that forced them to tune signals in properly, instead of the way they prefer -- 150 Hz high.


With my best,


Kevin, WB4AIO.

I think I heard those guys on the other day.

On 500 kHz another station and myself run receivers and homebrew phasing type transmitters with oscillators that are locked to GPS disciplined frequency standards. SSB sounds as good as AM, however, without a carrier the frequency doesn't remain quiet during pauses in speech.     

Do you have any pictures posted on the above Dave?

This is the nugget that disproves the contention "the carrier provides no information."

Indeed, it provides a cue to set the pace of a thoughtful transmission of information, punctuation really, to alert the listener the person is not yet done with their message.

Indeed, the carrier is the canvas upon which the modulation brushes the artwork!


After all slopbucket is simply paint thrown into the air!

  ;D

Well said!

If you can, slow down your AVC A LOT.  That works on the Flex 5000.  Still not quite like a full quieting AM signal but pretty good

VTP

Indeed, JT!

Then there is ACSSB with which a pilot tone is transmitted that a receiver can phase lock on so there can be no tuning problem in spite of using SSB.

I'll still take the pair of 810s any day.

It is wicked to broadcast a carrier.  That's why we do it.

That used to happen all the time during the early 60's when the cheap, crappy, "sideband for the masses" rigs like Galaxies, early Swans and Heapshit "Hotwater" rigs first came out.  I have listened to slopbucket QSOs literally walk up or down the band until they migrated beyond the band limits. That always caused me to ROTFLMAO.

It became less of a problem once the appliance manufacturers started to include "clarifiers" or RITs to their rigs, which allow small adjustments of receiver frequency without changing the transmit frequency, but there were always a few hammy  hambone types who never quite figured out what the purpose of RIT was.

I believe someone developed a type of synchronous detector for SSB that detected whether or not the natural harmonics in the audio range actually fall on harmonically related frequencies, and automatically adjusted to compensate for errors, but I don't know how successfully it worked, or if it simply never caught on commercially.

KD0HG/Bill wrote


I never heard of ACSSB Bill but it is interesting none the less. A controlled, narrow audio tone plus lower and upper sidebands. I bet it would sound just fine. I'm going to do some internet searches to see if I can find more on this. Thanks.

Mike

As I recall, ACSSB was being touted in the early 80's as a replacement mode for narrow-band FM in the VHF/UHF land mobile service.  It was said to retain many of the quieting and capture characteristics of FM but promised to be more effective and take less spectrum space.  UPS said they were planning to use it in the part of the 220 mc band they successfully lobbied the FCC to take from the hams. But they never actually used the spectrum once it was re-allocated, and nothing more was ever heard about ACSSB.

Brown paint.

ACSSB - Amplitude Compandored SSB. The term compandored is a combination of compression and expansion.

The pilot tone was used for more than just frequency/phase lock. The pilot tone was also modulated with audio level information (phase modulated IIRC).

The idea was to compress the heck out of the audio when it was transmitted. The level of compression would be modulated on the pilot tone. On the RX end, this compression info would be used to expanded (reverse the effects of the compression) and restore the dynamic range. Since the noise was not compressed, its level would be reduced during expansion, thus achieving an improvement in SNR.

Listening to ACSSB without this proper expansion results in horrible audio (like a contester with his audio cranked up to 11 and the compressor/clipper cranked up to 12).

This process is similar to the Dolby noise reduction systems used for tape recording.

Doing a search in the ARRL periodical section for "ACSSB" brings up fives pages of article listings. Most are in QEX, and a few in QST and Ham Radio Magazines. It looks like it was the talk of the ham radio community back in 1985 and 86.

Here's Don strapping on 160 meters this past March. You'll hear a few thumps or clicks in the recording. That's not Don. That's me switching between the 160 meter dipole and the Southwest Beverage. Don is coming in well on both but the SNR was slightly better on the Beverage.

That sounds like don.. However, He must have been full blast into that RXer.   let me guess? 60 DB over?  I used to talk to Don in the winter time, real late at night and he was strapping in here to AZ full blast.

C

would you believe the second I typed that don came in 50 DB over on 3880!!! 

C

I don't remember for sure but I'd say Don was 20-30 dB over S9 that night. On my receiver that is a big signal. Only a few people, mostly locals push it to 40-over. The noise was very low on 160 that night - it was about 2 AM, so the SNR was very high.

My vote for the best sounding audio from an AM DX station is F6AQK.

Here's Rob, W1AEX on 40 meters this past spring.

I gotta bump Rob W1AEX up to the top of the list..With his new Flex5000
his audio has become even better, plus he has vowed that there would
be no "flex smuggery"...Let's hold him to that...
Frank
K3SQP

Wow, that's the best I've ever heard Rob. Granted, the A-4 6kc filter is unfairly restrictive, but even when we worked him in February I don't recall him sounding so crisp. Excellent signal with audio to match, as it should be.

Also right up there for international AM is Claude, F5HSH:

http://amwindow.org/audio/mov/f5hsh.mov (http://amwindow.org/audio/mov/f5hsh.mov)

Don sounded good the other night. I had a crap out so we could not talk long.  Maybe I will try again tonight.

C