This is a decades-long ongoing debate which began with radios that had no
ability to shape the speaker/headphone audio. Using "hi-fi"
headphones/speakers, indeed, provide accurate reproduction of everything the
radio outputs including high-pitched heterodynes, off-frequency splatter,
etc., etc. which could be reduced significantly by a sound reproduction
device which rolled off the high frequencies. Usually that was spec'ed with
a bandwidth like 300 - 3000 Hz, but it varied. On a clear frequency with no
QRM/QRN/Lids, give me the wide open response. Otherwise, I'd like to tailor
the audio some, whether it's using the receiver's audio controls, or, if
they're not available, then a communications speaker or headset. So, it all
depends on (1) your equipment's capability, (2) your intended use, and (3)
your personal preferences. I don't understand the shouting here on a single
"correct" answer. I'll take a set of headphones with cotton stuffed in
them, please! :-)
73, Duane
Duane Calvin, AC5AA
Austin, Texas
www.ac5aa.com
-----Original Message-----
From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Barry N1EU
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:57 AM
To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
Subject: Re: [TenTec] COMMUNICATIONS SPEAKERS Article
I couldn't agree more with Jim's comments. If you want to tailor the
sound, do it in the electronics, not in the speaker. The speaker should be
an accurate transducer.
And I love my little RCA/Radio Shack/Optimus speakers (Pro-X44AV)!
73,
Barry N1EU
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Jim Brown
<k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>wrote:
> On 2/26/2013 10:29 PM, Richards wrote:
>
>> YES - the author makes a good case for using something tailored to the
>> task.
>>
>
> Bullsh&t. What is needed for good speech quality is nothing more or
> less than a loudspeaker with flat response AND uniform coverage in the
> speech range. And, because many (most?) ham rigs don't have high power
> audio output stages, it needs to be fairly efficient. "Tailored to
speech?"
> Horseh*t. Nothing more or less than a decent small, accurate loudspeaker
> that sounds the same over a fairly wide angle.
>
> Now, it so happens that Optimus is the "house brand" that Rat Shack used
> in the 70s and 80s. They didn't make anything themselves, but some of the
> small speakers they sold under the Optimus name were pretty decent, and we
> used them a bit for making noise in rooms to do acoustic testing. But
> "optimized for speech?" Zebrash&t.
>
> The reason that loudspeaker he likes sounds good on speech is that it's a
> decent "flat" (natural) loudspeaker. .
>
> 73, Jim Brown K9YC
> Fellow, Audio Engineering Society
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
>
http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/tentec<http://lists.contestin
g.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec>
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|