[CQ-Contest] Wireless Headphone System

[Kelly Taylor]

True, price isn’t always an accurate indicator of quality, either way. Cheap isn’t necessarily junk and expensive isn’t necessarily quality. 

The trick is understanding what you need, what the technical specs are telling you and what potential problems may derive from the design. Without that understanding, you can run into issues no matter how much, or how little, you pay. 

Then you decide what trade-offs you’re comfortable making. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 24, 2017, at 18:42, Joe <nss at mwt.net> wrote:
> 
> 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 infamous E-Mail, and 99% of the time it's streaming audio from like Pandora all through my property.
> 
> Still running strong! 20+ years later!
> 
> Joe WB9SBD
> 
>> On 12/24/2017 4:06 PM, Tom Osborne wrote:
>> 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 are always
>> ready to go.  She paid $29.95 for them.  Best $29.95 she ever spent on me!
>> :-)
>> 
>> They have big muffs that are real comfortable to wear.  And the best part
>> is that I can take my hearing aids off and adjust the volume to where it is
>> comfortable without the 'aids.  73
>> Tom W7WHY
>> 
>>> On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Kelly Taylor <ve4xt at mymts.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Don’t 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 have done in the first place? Which is, of course, to pony up for
>>> quality… For those who asked about a “quality” unit, $200 is not too much.
>>> 
>>> 73, kelly, ve4xt,
>>> 
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest