Just as a comment... you are setting the modulation up using an O'Scope to look at the output signal... right?My factory setting on top. It is nice to have some sort of reference. I assume counterclockwise is increase, correct?View attachment 20011
I don't have an oscilloscope, so I'm kinda stuck running it where the factory set it.Just as a comment... you are setting the modulation up using an O'Scope to look at the output signal... right?
If So, you will see which way increases modulation.
As for the Optima MK III, solid radio, been running mine for a couple years now with a Japan HM-36... SSB is dead on and gets great comments, AM is solid when setup for 100% modulation on the negative peak
Yes, but it's hard to start with everything.You do know an O'Scope is a seriously good investment in this hobby, right?
a 50MHz Rigol will get you were you need to be to setup all your radios correctly... 'Scopes don't lie
They have in the past, but not the magnum 1. It was accurate when it was written, as several magnums used the top gun boards.
Those sound like preconceived notions based on limited experiences.I've owned just about all of the anytones, maxlogs, and CRE 8900 and none of them are going to give you a big AM sound. I had two of the new president lincolns and with a d104 AM is pretty good but my Stryker 955 beat all the other clones for AM even though I liked it the least of the bunch.
Older radios - 99V, S9, Omegaforce, etc. - loud on AM and on SSB - would peak about 30-35 watts. Large chassis, hole mount parts, easy to adjust, physical switches, drift on SSB.
Newer radios - Maxlog, Anytone, etc. - peak from 40-50w - minimal drift on SSB - lots of menu options, clean audio, more sensitive but noiser receivers, not loud on AM, pretty good and punchy on SSB.
If I could find a mint Magnum S9 (1969) in box I might pull the trigger again even though I hated the drift when I owned one - it just sounded so good and loud on AM and SSB. Of course that S9 was pleasing to my "CB" audio ear which is different than my "ham" audio ear. Ahhhh... radio audio...you strange and mysterious beast.
Here is a quick rule of thumb. If your using a bird meter, you should see a slight wiggle to a little upswang in the meter at 100%. Watching it swang up too much is usually just gay feel good watts. Locals will say your low, guarantee it. They love to see the needle bouncing. Don't trust them.Yes, but it's hard to start with everything.
Thats true if your looking to sound like a cell phone. Too sound like a human keep it up BELOW 100 htz.Here's a pretty cool article about how audio bandwidth relates to performance.
Similar Concepts apply to AM.
http://www.w0btu.com/ssb_audio-weak_signal.html
In some cases, merely changing the audio characteristics of our transmitted signal can make as much difference as significantly increasing our power, at much less cost. Here's why.
It is good practice to eliminate the low frequencies below about 300 Hz, because intelligible speech does not require the transmission of frequencies lower than 300 Hz. To do so adds practically nothing to intelligibility. Elimination of the frequencies below 200 or 300 Hz removes a large percentage of the high energy speech components that do not contribute to intelligibility. Such elimination permits the transmitter to concentrate its efforts on only the essential portions of speech power. In practice, this means something like a 3 to 6 dB improvement in system effectiveness, equivalent to doubling or quadrupling its output power even before any speech processing.
Wide is great locally but for talking to weak stations that bass is going to kill the QSOThats true if your looking to sound like a cell phone. Too sound like a human keep it up BELOW 100 htz.