Vintage Asylum

Classic gear from yesteryear; vintage audio standing the test of time.

Return to Vintage Asylum

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Someone mention below about old vs new sound. Here is digtal processing vs analog

97.95.43.235
Posted on April 15, 2016 at 11:35:32
Michael Samra
Dealer

Posts: 36118
Location: saginaw michigan
Joined: January 30, 2005
 I talk about radios a lot of lately,mostly because we have tons of hams on the asylum but not only that,there is a lot of crossbreeding between the two. Notice the Icom transceiver on the left has all the bells and whistles from digital processing to spectrum analyzer and it's a current radio. The one on the right is mid 70s Collins that is all analog other than the tuning for the readout and I believe it has mechanical filters like my tubed Collins does..Notice the radio on the left uses an external speaker and the radio on the right is using it's built in speaker.Now this is running 75M AM which can be a very noisy band but it's pretty quiet in this comparison.
I'm curious as to which one you think sounds better..I think the Collins does by far because it sounds much more natural with much better clarity and more depth.The Icom sounds bassy and compressed in spite of having all the tuning bells and whistles to maximize everything and tailor the signal.
So everytime I hear people say how wonderful their new digitally processed piece of gear is,it makes me want to drag out our old analog outdated crap as many tech geeks might call it and embarrass them until they cry.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" H. L. Mencken

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: Someone mention below about old vs new sound. Here is digtal processing vs analog, posted on April 16, 2016 at 09:25:17
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37653
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 I'm curious as to which one you think sounds better..

Why not compare apples to apples and use the same speaker using the external speaker jack? I would think that anyone who wants superior sound would always select their own speaker. Would probably sound pretty nice on the big stats. :)

 

RE: Someone mention below about old vs new sound. Here is digtal processing vs analog, posted on April 16, 2016 at 13:42:51
Michael Samra
Dealer

Posts: 36118
Location: saginaw michigan
Joined: January 30, 2005
 No doubt it would great on the stats..As far as the speaker goes,the Icom had an advantage of a larger more modern speaker and had that been plugged into the Collins it would have sounded even better no doubt..I think what gives the Collins a big advantage is the way it can tailor and shape the IF with it mechanical filters but not only that,digital technology depends on the microprocessor and by nature,microprocessors generate a lot of noise and it has to be filtered out..That filtering comes at a price because lower frequency RF especially is very sensitive to that noise.IOW there is no free lunch.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" H. L. Mencken

 

I guess I'm confused by your response, posted on April 16, 2016 at 14:36:52
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37653
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 Returning to...

I think the Collins does by far because it sounds much more natural with much better clarity and more depth.The Icom sounds bassy and compressed

And then seeing...

I think what gives the Collins a big advantage is the way it can tailor and shape the IF with it mechanical filters...

I thought you were referring to the sound quality of the result.

 

RE: I guess I'm confused by your response, posted on April 16, 2016 at 15:12:31
Michael Samra
Dealer

Posts: 36118
Location: saginaw michigan
Joined: January 30, 2005
 I am referring to the audio quality which is also influenced by the IF as well as the audio output stage..I think it comes down to high quality analog vs high quality digital as the overall picture when it comes to RF.

Funny story.In 1992 I had purchased a modern rig was a Yaseu FT990.I got a good deal on it because I knew the Yaseu rep and it's a nice rig which I still have but don't use anymore.
The 10 meter band was wide open in the early 90s because we were in the peak of the sunspot cycle.Anyway I was talking to an older gentleman in Texas and this was on 10M upper sideband and he had the most beautiful sounding signals and audio I've ever heard on 10m and we talked for about 67 minutes.In that time I asked three times, what rig he was using in the course of about 40 minutes. He finally said to me you know,you have asked me three times about the rig I'm running and I'm embarrassed to tell you. It's a 1962 Collins KWM2.That's when it occurred to me that he was running a tubed unit and I always knew how well tubes performed in audio and RF amplifiers but I didn't think they could compete with the modern digital transceivers of the day with the fancy processing and that's when I learned otherwise.Of course the Collins was very special and a very expensive rig even by 1960 dollars which I think cost as much as some cars back then.In the end I knew he wasn't embarrassed in the least.He didn't want to brag about what he had because it destroyed my Yaseu from A to Z.
After that I bought me my first S line.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" H. L. Mencken

 

RE: I guess I'm confused by your response, posted on April 16, 2016 at 15:41:18
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37653
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 I think it comes high quality analog vs high quality digital as the overall picture when it comes to RF.

Hmmm. We don't hear radio frequencies. My experience is that typical digital falls short of analog at the very top of the audible spectrum lacking in overtones and the natural sense of space. OTOH, I find that high resolution digital is a win/win situation. Midrange response, however, is very different. I commented on that topic today here and a subsequent response.

I'm not a HAM, but aren't we talking about voice quality in the midrange? As for me, I don't find any limitations at that section of the bandwidth with digital. Much less any notions of "noise". Most often, digital is "overly quiet" and lacks top end air of unamplified music.

 

RE: I guess I'm confused by your response, posted on April 16, 2016 at 16:49:04
Michael Samra
Dealer

Posts: 36118
Location: saginaw michigan
Joined: January 30, 2005
 "We don't hear radio frequencies. My experience is that typical digital falls short of analog at the very top of the audible spectrum lacking in overtones and the natural sense of space."

Don't forget that we are listening to an analog format when we listen to AM/FM and SSB. Technically that Icom radio is an analog radio that processes its functions with a digital process.There are digital formats for radio that transmit the typical 1s and 0s and then it's decoded back to analog so we can hear it and the advantage to that is the signal has a much better chance of making it to the receiving end without getting broken up. As hams we can transmit in digital formats in certain areas of different bands but I have to review the band plans..

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" H. L. Mencken

 

RE: I guess I'm confused by your response, posted on April 16, 2016 at 21:57:21
Michael Samra
Dealer

Posts: 36118
Location: saginaw michigan
Joined: January 30, 2005
 RW
If you heard it set up live,you would hear the difference in depth.realism,and clarity even at the 3200hz range..I could hear some of it in the youtube video but if you heard that setup in a QSO,especially one with vacuum tubes,I would be mighty surprised if you didn't hear the difference between it and the Icom.The AM Ham guys are just like tube audiophiles in that sense because we love that natural realism where you are sitting in the shack and you can hear someone's dog breathing that's in the room with the guy you are talking to about 700 miles away. On sideband tho,the Collins is the only radio I've heard that can come reasonably close to AM quality on the transmit side.Remember,the AM we use is not like what the radio stations transmit because we don't compress our audio as a radio station would.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" H. L. Mencken

 

RE: I guess I'm confused by your response, posted on April 17, 2016 at 00:40:32
Tin Ear Bob
Audiophile

Posts: 13
Location: T'son AZ
Joined: November 5, 2015
 If you enjoy playing around listening and maybe talking with other hams non-fatiguing audio is rather nice when relying upon reflections from the ionosphere.

What digital enables has dramatic benefits for getting rid of interference, but I doubt little thought is given to it's effect on audio quality. For me, this holds true even for Copying Morse Code.

Tinny Bob
Never assume anything I post is accurate.

 

RE: I guess I'm confused by your response, posted on April 17, 2016 at 06:53:52
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37653
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 Don't forget that we are listening to an analog format when we listen to AM/FM and SSB.

Absolutely! Which requires an analog output stage and loudspeaker. The Collins one is tube based while the Icom is most likely op amp based.

Lose the op amps!

I continue to observe you are comparing two different things when you first state that a digitally based receiver cannot match the sound quality of an analog one. You could use a triode based output stage for the digitally based radio and most likely, get similar results.

 

RE: I guess I'm confused by your response, posted on April 17, 2016 at 10:20:43
Michael Samra
Dealer

Posts: 36118
Location: saginaw michigan
Joined: January 30, 2005

The Collins one is tube based while the Icom is most likely op amp based.

The Collins in the video of course is 100% solid state but has mechanical filters that Collins is famous for..The premises of my OP was to compare older vintage transceivers and radios to newer technology and in this case as we deal with analog radio formats,multiple use of microprocessors can be a detriment because of the noise it generates.Here is inside of the KWM380 so it also had it share of modern technology for the late 70s and early 80s.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" H. L. Mencken

 

RE: I guess I'm confused by your response, posted on April 17, 2016 at 10:35:27
Michael Samra
Dealer

Posts: 36118
Location: saginaw michigan
Joined: January 30, 2005
 Hi Bob
Glad you chimed in.You are absolutely correct about how digital formats can be advantageous in that we don't have to deal with noise from static crashes and changes in propagation. I worked CW more in last year than I have in the 7 years prior to that. I'm seeing a lot more activity now than in years past.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" H. L. Mencken

 

RE: World Band Receiver Audio Changed In Late 80s, posted on April 17, 2016 at 14:14:28
FRG7SWL
Audiophile

Posts: 2109
Location: NorCali
Joined: March 26, 2003
 Greetings once again para Sactown, Michael. Seems like world band receiver audio response changed in the late 80s. Until then, audio was fairly hi-fi in quality, especially when fed to audio amps. Afterwards, audio quality became more mid-centric, with relatively little highs or lows in the mix. Frog 7 has hi-fi audio, but ICOM R-75 is more mid-centric. Even after stereoadvisors' Luis modded unit for better fidelity in synchronous AM mode (in comparison, ICOM R-71A has more hi-fi'ish-quality audio from modded audio amp). BTW, would love to have your relatively quiet propogation background. There's always a blanket of digital hash across the spectrum from nearby Sactown County Communications Centre. 73s para Sactown

 

RE: World Band Receiver Audio Changed In Late 80s, posted on April 17, 2016 at 20:53:39
Michael Samra
Dealer

Posts: 36118
Location: saginaw michigan
Joined: January 30, 2005
 BTW, would love to have your relatively quiet propogation background.

QST published an article back in 2005 or so how all noise from digital data such as computers,plasma TVs,cell phones,etc,were ruining HF communications and then they wanted to put broadband over the power lines and we so happy after lobbying FCC to stop it.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" H. L. Mencken

 

Reminds me of my FT-107m. )MT(, posted on April 18, 2016 at 09:01:31
J. S. Bach
Audiophile

Posts: 9576
Location: Chester, SC
Joined: November 28, 2001
Contributor
  Since: June 29, 2004

Later Gator,
Dave
Find more about Weather in Chester, SC

 

Page processed in 0.026 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]