On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:16:31 -0700 "Erik N Basilier" <[email protected]> wrote:
> For the Amateur Service with its variations in modulation > specifications, it doesn't make any sense to me to put response > shaping in the headphones, as we then might want multiple sets for > multiple modes. Also, it doesn't make sense to limit the bandwidth at > a point where it doesn't affect AGC sensing. Many years ago when it > was hard to come by good selectivity at the IF, some bandwidth > limitation in the headphones may have been justified for reasons of > economical implementation. I don't know if airplane pilots' headsets > limit frequency response, but if they do, I suspect it is a matter of > standards being hard to change, and manufacturers not wanting cheaper > products made for other purposes to work well. > Now you did it; sent me to some airline-pilot-headset sites just for curiosity's sake. Sennheisers for AL pilots, a mere $717.00, frequency response 16-22,000 Hz. Given my high-fi speakers at 20-20,000, sounds like airline pilots go hi-fi too. And noise cancelling as well. Move over Bose! Telex and Plantronics aviation headsets had no easily accessed information on frequency response. Interesting discussion! With best regards, Pete -- Peter N. Spotts -- KC1JB http://www.kc1jb.net (under construction) Email: [email protected] | Skype: pspotts QRP-ARCI # 4174 | North American QRP CW Club # 2446 Flying Pigs QRP # 1983 | SKCC # 4853 | QCWA #34679 W5JH Black Widow paddle #601 ______________________________________________________________ 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
