Well you certainly seem to have a handle on things related to sh&t.....doesn't
really add any value to the discussion though....
Cecil
K5DL
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 27, 2013, at 2:19 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
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|