Here is a tour of several of my Transmit profiles, and why it is necessary to have several different ones, depending upon your purpose. BONUS: How to make a 6000 Series sound BAD! It can be done!
It is a little long, about 22 minutes with a couple of "tongue-tangles."
I hope you find it useful, and excuse a couple of "preachy" spots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s7UbKiqxAA
Equipment:
Flex-6500
Heil PR22UT Mike
Behringer Q802USB Mixer (for distribution, not equalization)
Audio/Video Capture - Open Broadcast Software (OBSProject.com)
It is a little long, about 22 minutes with a couple of "tongue-tangles."
I hope you find it useful, and excuse a couple of "preachy" spots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s7UbKiqxAA
Equipment:
Flex-6500
Heil PR22UT Mike
Behringer Q802USB Mixer (for distribution, not equalization)
Audio/Video Capture - Open Broadcast Software (OBSProject.com)
Ken - NM9P, Elmer
Posted 3 years ago
Now how about a 5 minute "Executive Version" showing only how to set up a 6000 audio with its factory mike right out of the box. That would have helped me a WHOLE LOT when I first got mine. TNX.
Ken - NM9P, Elmer
I plan on doing some more, detailing step-by-step procedures on setting up a new mike and adjusting the mike levels, EQ, processor, etc. but it will probably be next week. The last one took me about two hours to record and upload. (I had a couple of bad recordings due to noise in the studio/shack and phones ringing!)
As far as the stock mike...I will see what I can do. But it will never sound like a good studio mike.
Additional tutorials will not be as long as this last one. I tried to tackle too much in one recording. I should have separated the "how to make the Flex sound bad" section out into its own video.
Ken - NM9P
As far as the stock mike...I will see what I can do. But it will never sound like a good studio mike.
Additional tutorials will not be as long as this last one. I tried to tackle too much in one recording. I should have separated the "how to make the Flex sound bad" section out into its own video.
Ken - NM9P
(Edited)
But it will never sound like a good studio mike.
Of course not. But that's the way it comes to the new buyer. He needs to begin with positive experiences immediately even tho they may not approach perfection.
I was/am one of many who was greeted by bad on air reports until I got on air help and set up the furnished mike optimally. (I bought this 6000 from a buyer who gave up in frustration.) Then I added a new mike and it got even better.
-Dave W6OVP
Of course not. But that's the way it comes to the new buyer. He needs to begin with positive experiences immediately even tho they may not approach perfection.
I was/am one of many who was greeted by bad on air reports until I got on air help and set up the furnished mike optimally. (I bought this 6000 from a buyer who gave up in frustration.) Then I added a new mike and it got even better.
-Dave W6OVP
I experimented a little with Kens method. I set up FDX and separate TX and RX slices.
I then recorded a sample with the TX A slice. then transmitted the A slice sample while recording it with the B RX slice. Comparing the 2 recordings I couldn't tell much difference, other than the volume level they played back at. Now I've got a better idea how close the two sound though.
Good video's Ken, keep doing them.
73, Jay - NO5J
I then recorded a sample with the TX A slice. then transmitted the A slice sample while recording it with the B RX slice. Comparing the 2 recordings I couldn't tell much difference, other than the volume level they played back at. Now I've got a better idea how close the two sound though.
Good video's Ken, keep doing them.
73, Jay - NO5J
I think the proof they're 2 separate recordings was in the output levels.
It's that hard to tell the difference in them.
Maybe create the RX recording first, then go back and use a different sentence to record a second TX recording and compare those.
Like "this is slice B, transmitted from A" recorded on Slice B first, then "this is just Slice A" recorded on Slice A.
My guess is the recordings are stored in memory per slice. I haven't tried to prove that, but it's how i'd expect it to be doing it.
73, Jay - NO5J
It's that hard to tell the difference in them.
Maybe create the RX recording first, then go back and use a different sentence to record a second TX recording and compare those.
Like "this is slice B, transmitted from A" recorded on Slice B first, then "this is just Slice A" recorded on Slice A.
My guess is the recordings are stored in memory per slice. I haven't tried to prove that, but it's how i'd expect it to be doing it.
73, Jay - NO5J
(Edited)
Ken - NM9P, Elmer
When I was playing with the internal recorder, I found that it was extremely close to the sound I was receiving when monitoring on my 1500. The advantage with using FDX is that I can listen to my signal as I make adjustments. And I can see the signal on my panadapter as I do it. With the internal recorder I must record and then listen later, and the audio is "blind." I can't see it as I hear it.
But, either way works well. It is nice to have options now!
Ken - NM9P
But, either way works well. It is nice to have options now!
Ken - NM9P
Ken, thanks for your tutorial. What do you use to produce your Youtube videos?
Ken - NM9P, Elmer
I use OBS - Open Broadcast Software, which is an open source program that allows two audio inputs and will do Window capture or whole monitor capture and save in FLV and MPG4 formats.
It is going to be even easier to use now that v. 1.6.17 has DAX Mike output. I won't need to use my USB mixer for the narration mike!
Unfortunately I haven't had much time to do any additional Tutorials. I hope to get back to it soon.
Ken - NM9P
It is going to be even easier to use now that v. 1.6.17 has DAX Mike output. I won't need to use my USB mixer for the narration mike!
Unfortunately I haven't had much time to do any additional Tutorials. I hope to get back to it soon.
Ken - NM9P
Thanks Ken,
I've had a couple groups that want me to put a presentation together and hadn't found quite what I wanted to use. Hope you'll find time to put more tutorials together.
I've had a couple groups that want me to put a presentation together and hadn't found quite what I wanted to use. Hope you'll find time to put more tutorials together.
Yes both videos very well done and informative. Can you do one on global profiles, when you have time. Thanks muchly
Cheers
Wayne
vk4acn
Cheers
Wayne
vk4acn
Ken - NM9P, Elmer
I will need to research global profiles a bit more before I tackle that one. I don't use them very much. I DO use Transmit Profiles quite a bit.
I got excited after seeing this video and used the technique of transmitting through the XVRT port on my 6500 in one slice and monitoring/recording in FDX on another slice tuned to same frequency. I adjusted TX EQ to provide good tonal balance based on what I was hearing on playback. I subsequently found that my actual signal being received by distant stations had a tonal balance skewed to the treble as compared to what I was hearing locally with this monitoring method. I therefore must question whether you can reliably adjust your TX EQ with this technique.
Barry N1EU
Barry N1EU
(Edited)
For this to be a meaningful test, we need to be able to save the SSDR recording in a file. Is there anyway to do that? Or do we just use RX DAX and make a recording with a soundcard program like Audacity?
Yes to the DAX and Audacity.
Ken - NM9P, Elmer
My own tests, listening and recording with my 1500 on a dummy load, and comparing with recordings via the full duplex option, showed results that I would call "pretty darn close." Assuming that my full duplex receiver's filters and EQ are set the same as the outboard receiver.
Other receivers may have a different response due to different filtering, EQ settings, or speakers.
As always YMMV.
Other receivers may have a different response due to different filtering, EQ settings, or speakers.
As always YMMV.
Sal and I will run some tests and hopefully come up with some comparison recordings to help shed light on what I'm seeing with this method.
I would REALLY like this method to be reliable/dependable but it doesn't seem to be working for me so far.
I would REALLY like this method to be reliable/dependable but it doesn't seem to be working for me so far.
(Edited)
I have a cool way of running my own test. I have a Kenwood TS2000 that I run remotely with RemoteRig. The TS2000 is located in my QTH in Madrid Spain. It is connected to a Hexbeam. I can actually hear myself, as I sound after crossing the atlantic. On different bands and with different conditions I can hear the effects of different settings.
In my case, using an electret capsule with a yamaha CM500 headset I like it better using EQ and no PROC. If I use PROC I have to turn off EQ.
In my case, using an electret capsule with a yamaha CM500 headset I like it better using EQ and no PROC. If I use PROC I have to turn off EQ.
With the help of Sal 8P9EH, I just went through an exercise of comparing my locally created recordings (using Ken's FDX/XVTR technique) to recordings that Sal made of me over the air. I'm happy to report that I stand corrected and there is fairly good correspondence between them. I'm not sure why I previously had a mis-compare between my recordings and what people told me I sounded like but I plan on continuing to experiment! Thanks to Sal for his patience and efforts in assisting me!
73, Barry N1EU
73, Barry N1EU
(Edited)
It was fun Barry and thanks for your recordings of my profiles.
