CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Advice Sought for Wireless Headsets & Mics

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Advice Sought for Wireless Headsets & Mics
From: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Reply-to: k9yc@arrl.net
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 17:41:07 -0800
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
On Fri,12/4/2015 12:04 PM, David Pruett wrote:
During 30+ years in the automotive industry, we had a rule of thumb that anything under 100 mS couldn't be "noticed" by the human operator.

Human tolerance of delay is VERY dependent on the application. With AUDIO, an echo greater than about 35 msec becomes increasingly problematic; even delays as short at 30 msec can be fatiguing. Increase the delay to 80 msec, and the talker will slow down and stop talking. In my live sound work, I've witnessed VERY professional announcers turn to silly putty when hearing themselves coming through a ballpark sound system 100 msec after their speech.

The problem occurs with the talker hears him/herself coming through distant loudspeakers, producing the delay. There are two very effective fixes. 1) Prevent them from hearing themselves on delay; or 2) give them their voice UN-delayed in headphones.

I have not seen studies, nor have I experienced, latency beyond about 10 msec or so ham applications, but I would expect anything much beyond 100 msec to get tricky in a contesting application, simply because you're giving away that much reaction time. Also, remember that our systems are two-way, so TX and RX delays are additive.

I'd love to hear a thoughtful, analytical presentation/discussion by some top contesters who have dealt with latency in high rate contesting. I think it would VERY educational.

73, Jim K9YC

73, Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>