LS, You are correct that speakers *can* provide bandpass limiting. And that is quite effective with low grade communication devices that have a very wide audio response, or audio with a lot of distortion products.
Modern communications receivers are not that way - Some like the K3 have RX EQ and with modern audio amplifier chips, the audio distortion is low - under those conditions, wide range speakers will provide cleaner audio to the ears than a "communications speaker" which limits the bandpass (and sometimes introduces distortion in the process). Many of us have hearing problems - initiated by military service, loud concerts, occupational hazards, etc. In my own case, I have observed that my ears are more sensitive (and less tolerant) to distortion than those with normal hearing range. The cleaner the audio, the better it sounds even though my ears themselves act like low pass filters - I have no better explanation than that, so my advice to those with hearing problems (and to those who don't know about their hearing problems yet) is "Listen to speakers with a clean wide frequency response before making a decision". Modern electronics *can* limit the bandpass without introducing distortion, but if the bandpass is restricted by a mechanical device (speaker or headphones), distortion is often a result of that mechanical bandpass limiting. Yes, I have discussed this phenomenon with audio specialists - audiologists, audio engineers, and those selling high end audio equipment, and have not found any who differ with my perceptions, in fact most can verify that the tolerance to endure distortion decreases when there is hearing loss. As an example, how many people with normal hearing do you know who are quite tolerant of a mis-tuned AM broadcast station? It drives me out of the room! In my teen years when my hearing was very good, I enjoyed listening to my 6 transistor AM radio with its tiny tinny speaker - but now that would drive me insane. 73, Don W3FPR lstavenhagen wrote: > Not meaning to pour gas on this, but... Is it just me that doesn't understand > the idea of hi-fi in amateur radio, for HF anyway? > I always thought the goal for voice modes was a good "communications" > response, an intentional "low-fi". i.e. good response in the frequency > range of the human voice (something like 300 to 1 or 2 khz), but with peaks > and dips, as well as rolloffs on the ends as needed to increase > intelligibility without unnecessarily increasing bandwidth. > > This is a trend I've only picked up on recently and I'm a bit mystified by > it. I don't use voice modes which might be why I don't understand, but help > an aging brass pounder (and soon-to-be-PSK nut) out on this, hi hi... > > ______________________________________________________________ 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
