Re: QUANTAR VHF Audio Interface...
|
"
until you become familiar and
ultimately used to better audio - you don't want to go back to
industry standard. "
Amen to that.
This is also why some people actually think that YSF or other digital sounds better than analog audio.?? Because the "normal" analog they are comparing to is the average sounding repeater.?? And most don't actually do even 300-3000, many start the rolloff at 2000, and also don't start passing well until about 500.?? If you compare YSF vs simplex, well, simplex sounds better hands down.? (And use a good analog radio). ? So if you can get a repeater so there is no distinguishable difference between input and output audio, you have it as good as simplex.???
Andy WJ9J
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 8:21 AM Kevin Custer < kuggie@...> wrote:
Dan,
I'm glad you realize that you are going off far into the weeds.
I don't disagree that many stock repeaters have "industry
standard" frequency response - but for some of us - we want more.?
This is no different than buying a stock vehicle and modifying it
for our needs.? Whether that be performance or whatever.
As far as standards to compare to - until you become familiar and
ultimately used to better audio - you don't want to go back to
industry standard.? At that point - industry standard audio is
substandard.? As hams - we're afforded the ability to stretch the
frequency response - commercial applications, that's not allowed.?
What you seem to be missing is goals in amateur radio can be
different - and that's okay.
And - I'm not talking about some hack job by ramming discriminator
audio into a FM modulator without any protection.? There are
products that are "out there" that allow you to do it right, and
protect your neighbors.? Some bands allow you to stretch the
bandwidth farther than others because of channel utilization and
separation.? These are topics that have been debated for 30 years
on various Internet groups/lists/etc.
Kevin
On 10/25/2022 11:42 PM, Dan Woodie wrote:
Kevin,
I do agree with you?that this group can be about going
outside of what is normally done with repeaters and improving
on them - so in that respect maybe my comment was a bit off
the mark.??
I will disagree with your inference that Quantar has
"substandard frequency response".? Which standard are you
comparing it to?? I would suggest that Quantar and other
repeaters of similar performance ARE the industry standard.? I
believe what the goal of this post was - and what you prefer -
would be considered a "superior frequency response" while
Quantar would match or exceed "Standard frequency response".?
I understand the goal here - the question is what has to be
given up to achieve it and is it worth it.? I worked in pro
audio (install/recording/touring) for many years so I also
appreciate quality audio - but it also has to be practical and
not cause other technical and functional issues in the
process.
If I get some time this week, since I have the test
equipment to do it, I might setup a Quantar on the bench and
do some tests to see what the actual frequency response is
through the internal repeat audio path - and then change some
of the settings to see how they impact it.? I will use Pink
Noise as a baseline, below the deviation limiter threshold -?
then I can play some high-quality/wide range voice through to
see the actual impact on the intelligibility and quality.? I
will probably use my HP 8924C and Ivie IE-30A/IE-20P to
perform the testing.? The HP 8924C has the ability to turn off
the pre-emphasis/de-emphasis and both low and high-pass
filters so it is ideal for the task and will likely?outperform
any available transceiver in regards to modulating a "flat"
response.? I am curious how the Quantar will perform.
Thanks,
Daniel Woodie, CETsr
KC8ZUM
|
