[BC] Optimod 9000-vs-9100

[Broadcast List USER]

I totally disagree.

Ham AM is about high-fidelity audio.  Using a 9000, 9100, or 9200 is  
just wrong.  There is just far too much HF boost.

Frankly, the original 9000 (which my AM used) was abusive on AM radio  
too.  It just had too much HF boost.  (Sorry, Bob, but that is just my  
opinion.)  I don't blame this on Orban, but rather on the AM radio  
manufacturers, especially those who made car radios.  They rolled off  
the high end so much, that the high end boost was the counter-attack.   
It was a bad time in audio.

Then again, the 9000 did cut through the radio in my Ford Fiesta.  It  
was typical of the era (1984).  The stock radio just rolled off the  
high end in the extreme.

That brick for the air monitor actually had too much high frequency  
attenuation.  I ended up using an external EQ, and it sounded good.

I really did enjoy the low frequency tilt adjustment.  It was fun to  
set up, and so easy to overload the transmitter.

--chip

On Oct 7, 2009, at 7:52 PM, broadcast-request at radiolists.net wrote:

> Message: 14
> Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:21:51 -0700
> From: kj4hyd <kj4hyd at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [BC] Optimod 9000-vs-9100
> [...]
> Now the 9000A would make KILLER processor for the 75 meter AM Window
> in the Ham Bands, but for $1500 Bucks, you can pick up a used 9200.
> -- 
>
> 73,
> Kevin Raper
> KJ4HYD
> CE WCKI WQIZ