Wes, I agree with you completely. The headphone response should not be the limiting factor. - headphones should be designed for fidelity, not a constrained response.
If the audio response must be tailored, it should be done before the headphones - the RX response or though the use of an AF low pass filter. Some may disagree, but I believe good high fidelity response in the headphones is important. If the response is not right, the place to fix it is in whatever is before the headphones. I do accept that 'communications headphones' will do the job, but they are usually an effective low pass filter in combination with a full range set of headphone transducers. 73, Don W3FPR Wes Stewart wrote: > I concur 100% with Brett (for a change). Filtering should be done > electronically where it can be controlled, not mechanically where all it does > is add distortion. > > It was a revelation when I was first working EME in the early eighties and > was still using some military "communications" headphones and I changed over > to some Koss "hi-fi" phones and an in-line 200 Hz wide LC filter. There were > signals buried in that mush that was all I was hearing with the > "communications" phones. > > Later I bought into the brand "H" hype and got a headset at my local ham > emporium. After about five minutes of listening, I took them back. They were > simply awful! I don't think much of the microphones either, even though they > are wildly popular. > > It's hard to beat a nice passive LC brute force filter. They can clean up a > multitude of sins that we are presented with by the afterthought audio stages > in modern transceivers. > > Wes N7WS > > > > ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[email protected] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
