[BC] Old vs New (WAS: bta-250m)

[WFIFeng@aol.com]

In a message dated 06/03/2006 2:58:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
KC4QLP at aol.com writes:

> Having done a number of transmitter "upgrades" [ out with the old tube 
>  trannys to new solid state, filling cabinet sized transmitters ] I can 
> firmly attest 
>  that the "sound" is different. 

Ok... "different" I can accept. Based on my own (admittedly limited) 
experience, the diference between our old tube box (which sounded "ok") and the new 
Harris was so dramatic, and so vastly superior, that when I heard myself on it 
for the very first time I said "Man! This thing sounds GOOD!" right on the air! 
(It was a few minutes after midnight, when we were testing it for the first 
time! <G>)

>  The best way I can describe it, there is a harshness...or a slight type of 
>  "rough edge" sound with solid state transmitters.

I wonder if this is similar to the difference some describe between vinyl and 
CD recordings. IMHO, CD blows vinyl away.

>  Most of your ordinary listeners probably wouldn't really catch on to the 
>  difference...nor would it effect listenership.

In our case, I suspect that they did... going from 95% peak modulation to 
-95% / +120% would be enough to sound a bit louder and clearer. The difference on 
the music being the most dramatic improvement! Nearly-flat from 20Hz to 
10Khz, compared to the old beast, which barely wheezed about 80Hz-10Khz, but with a 
few dB hills & valleys along the way.

I haven't tested it, but I'd betcha the Harris could be modulated right down 
into the single-digit Hz! (Probably for AM Stereo compatibility?)

>  The older gear definitely has a more mellow, smooth sound

When driven hard, yes, I do agree that a tube transmitter (or audio amp) 
sounds better, simply because of the different harmonics / "softer" clipping you 
get with firebottles. When compared with a *non* distorted signal, I think in 
most cases, you'd be heard-pressed to tell them apart, unless the old iron was 
"coloring" the signal. (Which it certainly can do.)

> but the newer gear  can handle the high levels of modulation.

Right, and with much flatter freq response.

> That is something the old gear can 
>  not do for extended periods without risking blowing up a mod transformer 
and 
> or  reactor. 

Exactly.

>  The cost to replace one of them things ...ouch! .....get one built, new 
for 
>  your rig and the transformer will be worth more than the old transmitter 
>  itself!

I know... Peter Dahl does absolutely outstanding work... but you do get what 
you pay for... and you sure do *pay* for big iron like that! <:O Cha-Ching!

Willie...