Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Wireless\s+Headphone\s+System\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Wireless Headphone System (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 11:59:28 -0800
Over the years, I've seen several requests for wireless headphone systems. The limitation of most consumer systems is latency -- delay through the wireless link due to digital encoding and decoding f
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-12/msg00128.html (7,857 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Wireless Headphone System (score: 1)
Author: Joe <nss@mwt.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 21:28:15 -0600
WOW! $200 Bucks!? Here 27 to 30 db of hearing isolation, you won't hear anything outside the muffs. https://tinyurl.com/ychbwcpq Then add this to your system, and you have a wireless headphone system
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-12/msg00129.html (9,112 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Wireless Headphone System (score: 1)
Author: "Chuck Milam, N9KY" <N9KY@arrl.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 08:00:57 -0600
Joe: Jim did go out of his way to specify: "Here's a low cost (relative to other pro systems) professional system...." -- Chuck Milam, N9KY N9KY@arrl.net _____________________________________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-12/msg00131.html (10,513 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Wireless Headphone System (score: 1)
Author: Joe <nss@mwt.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 09:51:47 -0600
I'm sorry, I was not picking on Jim in my reply. Just to me $200 is not "Low Cost" Sorry Everyone. Joe WB9SBD Jim did go out of his way to specify: "Here's a low cost (relative to other pro systems)
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-12/msg00132.html (11,328 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] Wireless Headphone System (score: 1)
Author: Joe <nss@mwt.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 10:24:35 -0600
Wow! I guess Contesting is not an aspect of this hobby for those with not a lot of money. I am amazed at the level of Flames and number of them, I got from MANY people on this E-Mail list about my co
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-12/msg00133.html (9,746 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] Wireless Headphone System (score: 1)
Author: Ria Jairam <rjairam@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 11:36:04 -0500
I'll have to agree with Jim here - this is a good price for a quality unit. The average outsider looking at our hobby will find all of our equipment expensive, except for the $35 chinese talkies. It'
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-12/msg00134.html (10,599 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] Wireless Headphone System (score: 1)
Author: Kelly Taylor <ve4xt@mymts.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 10:29:59 -0600
Hi Joe, Jim also did specify that Bluetooth systems are problematic for contesting given the latency inherent in the Bluetooth encoding process. From a contesting perspective, $200 isnt overly expens
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-12/msg00135.html (12,882 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] Wireless Headphone System (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 10:20:12 -0800
Contesting can be enjoyed at many levels. Winning can be VERY expensive. Google to find websites of K3LR, W3LPL, N6RO, 4O3A and take a wild guess at what those antenna farms cost. I started contestin
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-12/msg00138.html (9,421 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] Wireless Headphone System (score: 1)
Author: "Bob Shohet, KQ2M" <kq2m@kq2m.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 09:41:08 -0500
The main decision is price vs. value. Many people make decisions based on price. And for that, you get what you get. Sometimes good, sometimes bad, mostly mediocre. But for those that choose to make
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-12/msg00141.html (13,604 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] Wireless Headphone System (score: 1)
Author: Kelly Taylor <ve4xt@mymts.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 08:29:21 -0600
Dont forget: quality always costs less in the long run. What are the odds the cheapo unit posited has the Pin 1 problem? How many cheap units do you go through before you decide to do what you should
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-12/msg00144.html (10,462 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] Wireless Headphone System (score: 1)
Author: Tom Osborne <w7why1@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 14:06:34 -0800
Been using the same old Radio Shack cordless headphones my wife bought me about 10 years ago. Analog type with no latency in the audio. Just set them on the charger base when not using them and they
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-12/msg00154.html (9,450 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] Wireless Headphone System (score: 1)
Author: Joe <nss@mwt.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 18:42:45 -0600
Yup, just because it's cheaper, does NOT mean it's Junk! The small Transmitter I bought, for the FM broadcast I bought in 1994. For like 5 bucks. It plays radio when I want to as described in my infa
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-12/msg00155.html (10,772 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] Wireless Headphone System (score: 1)
Author: Kelly Taylor <ve4xt@mymts.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 19:52:40 -0600
True, price isnt always an accurate indicator of quality, either way. Cheap isnt necessarily junk and expensive isnt necessarily quality. The trick is understanding what you need, what the technical
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-12/msg00157.html (11,867 bytes)

14. Re: [CQ-Contest] Wireless Headphone System (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 10:20:13 -0800
Exactly right.  It's also important to realize that the quantity of units sold can be a very large component of their cost. The Yamaha CM500 headset and Koss equivalent are relatively inexpensive bec
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-12/msg00161.html (11,069 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu