Speakers - Optimal Frequency Range?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
26 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Speakers - Optimal Frequency Range?

MaverickNH
So aside from speakers that match the design of a transceiver, there seems to be some difference in philosophy about frequency range. Palstar touts a 55-8000 Hz range while the Phonema and Elecraft speakers spec at 100-20000 Hz. Palstar says sound above 8kHz is non-communication noise.

So what's the verdict, High-Fidelity or HAM-Fidelity?

Bret/N4SRN
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speakers - Optimal Frequency Range?

Jim Brown-10
What matters is smooth (flat) response from about 200 Hz to about 3 kHz
as heard at the ear of the operator. The laws of physics dictate that
uniformity of high frequency response is limited by diaphragm size --
the larger the speaker, the worse it sounds off axis. The speaker built
into the K3 is a nice small one, so it has pretty good off axis
response, but it faces straight up. In most shacks, the highs bounce off
of nearby surfaces to get to the listener. A front-facing loudspeaker
will have flatter response, but takes up more space on the operating desk.

73, Jim K9YC

On Sun,10/16/2016 3:02 PM, MaverickNH wrote:
> So what's the verdict, High-Fidelity or HAM-Fidelity?


______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speakers - Optimal Frequency Range?

Don Wilhelm
In reply to this post by MaverickNH
Bret,

In my opinion, a speaker should not "color" the audio response of the
receiver.

While it is true that there is not normally much response above 4000Hz
from a ham transceiver, the speaker should not be the limiting factor.

IMHO, the best characteristic of a speaker is the flatness of its
response curve rather than its frequency range.  A speaker with a flat
response will allow you to hear the transceiver "as it should be"
without distortion. So my vote is for "High-Fidelity" speakers.

73,
Don W3FPR

On 10/16/2016 6:02 PM, MaverickNH wrote:
> So aside from speakers that match the design of a transceiver, there seems to
> be some difference in philosophy about frequency range. Palstar touts a
> 55-8000 Hz range while the Phonema and Elecraft speakers spec at 100-20000
> Hz. Palstar says sound above 8kHz is non-communication noise.
>
> So what's the verdict, High-Fidelity or HAM-Fidelity?
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speakers - Optimal Frequency Range?

Wes Stewart-2
In reply to this post by Jim Brown-10
That's why we use a CM500

On 10/16/2016 3:18 PM, Jim Brown wrote:

> What matters is smooth (flat) response from about 200 Hz to about 3 kHz as
> heard at the ear of the operator. The laws of physics dictate that uniformity
> of high frequency response is limited by diaphragm size -- the larger the
> speaker, the worse it sounds off axis. The speaker built into the K3 is a nice
> small one, so it has pretty good off axis response, but it faces straight up.
> In most shacks, the highs bounce off of nearby surfaces to get to the
> listener. A front-facing loudspeaker will have flatter response, but takes up
> more space on the operating desk.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speakers - Optimal Frequency Range?

Joe Subich, W4TV-4
In reply to this post by Don Wilhelm

On 10/16/2016 6:28 PM, Don Wilhelm wrote:
 > IMHO, the best characteristic of a speaker is the flatness of its
 > response curve rather than its frequency range.  A speaker with a flat
 > response will allow you to hear the transceiver "as it should be"
 > without distortion. So my vote is for "High-Fidelity" speakers.

While I agree that the speakers should not color the transceiver,
excessive low frequency response on receive is as wasteful as excessive
low frequency response on transmit.  In that regard, I'm very happy
with a pair of Pyle PCB3 (3" Mini Cube Bookshelf Speakers) - one left
and one right.  They are specified for 90 Hz - 18 KHz and I *still*
use the maximum RX EQ cut on the 50 and 100 Hz bands.

Speaker response above 5 - 6 KHz is moot since the K3/K3S includes a
4.5 KHz "brick wall" lowpass filter in the headphone/speaker channel.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV



______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speakers - Optimal Frequency Range?

NK7Z
In reply to this post by MaverickNH
300-3000 flat will work best...

On Sun, 2016-10-16 at 15:02 -0700, MaverickNH wrote:

> So aside from speakers that match the design of a transceiver, there
> seems to
> be some difference in philosophy about frequency range. Palstar touts
> a
> 55-8000 Hz range while the Phonema and Elecraft speakers spec at 100-
> 20000
> Hz. Palstar says sound above 8kHz is non-communication noise.
>
> So what's the verdict, High-Fidelity or HAM-Fidelity?
>
> Bret/N4SRN 
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Spe
> akers-Optimal-Frequency-Range-tp7623428.html
> Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

--
73's, and thanks,
Dave (NK7Z)
For software/hardware reviews see:
http://www.nk7z.net

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speakers - Optimal Frequency Range?

k6dgw
In reply to this post by Joe Subich, W4TV-4
The Hallicrafters bass reflex speaker cabinet for the SX-28 had fabulous
flat response ... down to the deep bass if you drove it with that.  It
also employed a fairly large speaker and was big ... very big, and took
a few watts [8 peak, I think] to drive it.

In the late 50's, in college and on a limited budget, it was common for
students to use 5 or 6" speakers in tight cubic boxes made of 3/4"
plywood and stuffed with some wall insulation for the then-new stereo
records.  They sounded pretty good and doubled as supports for the
ubiquitous cinder-block shelving.  My roomie and I painted ours black.

Why wouldn't one of those work?

73,

Fred K6DGW
Sparks NV USA
Washoe County DM09dn

On 10/16/2016 4:56 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

> While I agree that the speakers should not color the transceiver,
> excessive low frequency response on receive is as wasteful as excessive
> low frequency response on transmit.  In that regard, I'm very happy
> with a pair of Pyle PCB3 (3" Mini Cube Bookshelf Speakers) - one left
> and one right.  They are specified for 90 Hz - 18 KHz and I *still*
> use the maximum RX EQ cut on the 50 and 100 Hz bands.
>
> Speaker response above 5 - 6 KHz is moot since the K3/K3S includes a
> 4.5 KHz "brick wall" lowpass filter in the headphone/speaker channel.
>
> 73,
>
>    ... Joe, W4TV

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speakers - Optimal Frequency Range?

NK7Z
In reply to this post by Don Wilhelm
On Sun, 2016-10-16 at 18:28 -0400, Don Wilhelm wrote:
> Bret,
>
> In my opinion, a speaker should not "color" the audio response of the 
> receiver.

Au contraire, the speaker is as much a part of the radio as the
synthesizer, or the APF is.  We are not dealing with a high end stereo
here, (where the speakers should never color things, but frequently do),
we are dealing with the terminal end of a communications link, which can
be several thousand miles long, and as such, the speaker is just another
filter/device to reproduce the sound.  Filters by nature color things,
hence the speaker must color the sound if we are to use all parts as
efficiently as possible.

--
73's, and thanks,
Dave (NK7Z)
For software/hardware reviews see:
http://www.nk7z.net

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speakers - Optimal Frequency Range?

Don Wilhelm
Dave,

While what you say (using the speaker as a filter) may have been
advantageous in the days when receiver selectivity was "broad as a barn
door".  I don't think that applies today for receivers have adequate
selectivity to do that filtering job.  Some low end receivers that do
not provide adequate filtering may benefit from a peaked speaker, but
that is not true of any of the Elecraft receivers.

Besides, unless your "filtering" speaker matches the filtering provided
by your headphones, there will be a vast difference when switching
between the speaker and the 'phones.

In modern days, a flat speaker response in the 300 to 3000 Hz range is
the best for communications.  If the speaker response is greater than
that range, it will not matter because the receiver will not produce
audio much beyond that 300 to 3000 Hz range.

To me, the goal is a flat speaker response in the range that the
receiver produces audio.  The fact that the speaker is also flat beyond
that range is of no consequence unless that same speaker is also used
for Hi-Fi listening.

73,
Don W3FPR

On 10/16/2016 8:17 PM, Dave Cole wrote:

> On Sun, 2016-10-16 at 18:28 -0400, Don Wilhelm wrote:
>> Bret,
>>
>> In my opinion, a speaker should not "color" the audio response of the
>> receiver.
>
> Au contraire, the speaker is as much a part of the radio as the
> synthesizer, or the APF is.  We are not dealing with a high end stereo
> here, (where the speakers should never color things, but frequently do),
> we are dealing with the terminal end of a communications link, which can
> be several thousand miles long, and as such, the speaker is just another
> filter/device to reproduce the sound.  Filters by nature color things,
> hence the speaker must color the sound if we are to use all parts as
> efficiently as possible.
>
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speakers - Optimal Frequency Range?

Elecraft mailing list
In reply to this post by MaverickNH
Re:   "Back in the K2 days, many hams folded some stiff card or paper to make such a deflector to tape to the top of their rigs."

That idea was highlighted again in May 2016 QST Hints & Kinks, pg 63.

Mark,
KE6BB
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speakers - Optimal Frequency Range?

Martin Sole-3
It's been doing the rounds for years in one form or another. I remember
trying one from a 70's or 80's ARRL H&K book. a 45 degree PVC pipe bend
of suitable diameter, 3 or 4 inches. Suitably fixed to the top of the
radio, blu-tak or whatever. Paint to match. Very useful to focus the sound.

I'm sure a suitably embellished matching "K-pipe", available soon no
doubt, will be even better ;-)


Martin, HS0ZED



On 17/10/2016 06:36, Mark via Elecraft wrote:

> Re:   "Back in the K2 days, many hams folded some stiff card or paper to make such a deflector to tape to the top of their rigs."
>
> That idea was highlighted again in May 2016 QST Hints & Kinks, pg 63.
>
> Mark,
> KE6BB
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speakers - Optimal Frequency Range?

Edward R Cole
In reply to this post by MaverickNH
As many of you know I suffer extreme hearing loss (especially high
freqs), so Don's comment really hit home for me.  Several years ago I
debated buying a home theater system with prof. speakers as I
wondered if I could discern the improvement.  I found that having
very linear response from 50-Hz to 20KHz improved understanding of
voice on the TV as well as enjoyable music.

Later, I found choosing the flat response program in my hearing aids
also provided the crispest voices and better understanding.

Long ago I bought a pair of Sony stereo headsets for listening to
weak signals on ham radio.  Appears that also was a good move.

So even if the audio output is restricted to 300-4000 Hz the speaker
reproduces that faithfully.

My new blue-tooth capable hearing aids have much wider freq response
as I am hearing a wider range from low to high freq.  The plus is my
iphone connects directly to my hearing aids for best hearing in
public (and that half is private).  I have yet to try using bluetooth
with my K3.  Let you know how that sounds, later.

73, Ed - KL7UW
PS: my KX3 audio will be connected to the truck speakers via sync;
more on that, later.

From: Don Wilhelm <[hidden email]>
To: MaverickNH <[hidden email]>, [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Speakers - Optimal Frequency Range?
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed

Bret,

In my opinion, a speaker should not "color" the audio response of the
receiver.

While it is true that there is not normally much response above 4000Hz
from a ham transceiver, the speaker should not be the limiting factor.

IMHO, the best characteristic of a speaker is the flatness of its
response curve rather than its frequency range.  A speaker with a flat
response will allow you to hear the transceiver "as it should be"
without distortion. So my vote is for "High-Fidelity" speakers.

73,
Don W3FPR

73, Ed - KL7UW
http://www.kl7uw.com
     "Kits made by KL7UW"
Dubus Mag business:
     [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speakers - Optimal Frequency Range?

NK7Z
In reply to this post by Don Wilhelm
On Sun, 2016-10-16 at 23:32 -0400, Don Wilhelm wrote:

> Dave,
>
> While what you say (using the speaker as a filter) may have been 
> advantageous in the days when receiver selectivity was "broad as a
> barn 
> door".  I don't think that applies today for receivers have adequate 
> selectivity to do that filtering job.  Some low end receivers that do 
> not provide adequate filtering may benefit from a peaked speaker, but 
> that is not true of any of the Elecraft receivers.
>
> Besides, unless your "filtering" speaker matches the filtering
> provided 
> by your headphones, there will be a vast difference when switching 
> between the speaker and the 'phones.
>
> In modern days, a flat speaker response in the 300 to 3000 Hz range
> is 
> the best for communications.  If the speaker response is greater than 
> that range, it will not matter because the receiver will not produce 
> audio much beyond that 300 to 3000 Hz range.
>
> To me, the goal is a flat speaker response in the range that the 
> receiver produces audio.  The fact that the speaker is also flat
> beyond 
> that range is of no consequence unless that same speaker is also used 
> for Hi-Fi listening.
>
> 73,
> Don W3FPR

Hi Don,
I am saying that not using the speaker as part of the total
communications system is not effective use of hardware, having a speaker
that is flat beyond the audio output range of the radio is useless and
just runs the cost of the radio up.

You are assuming that receivers are all 300-3000, they are not, else
ESSB would never have come about.  We are not running broadcast
stations, we are running communications links.

Best communications is achieved using something close to 300-3000.  See:
http://www.w0btu.com/ssb_audio-weak_signal.html

In reality, it really would not matter if one put a high end stereo
speaker on the radio, assuming the radio were limited to 300-3000, (as
it should be), save a bit of amp noise leaking through...  

So, as I said in my original post, it is the most efficient use of the
hardware is to use a limited response speaker.  No need for high end
stereo speakers on a K3...  That said, I may put on some better speakers
on my K3 because in the long run it is a bit less stressful on my
ears...  :)


 
--
73's, and thanks,
Dave (NK7Z)
For software/hardware reviews see:
http://www.nk7z.net

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speakers - Optimal Frequency Range?

NK7Z
In reply to this post by Edward R Cole
On Sun, 2016-10-16 at 20:47 -0800, Edward R Cole wrote:
> As many of you know I suffer extreme hearing loss (especially high 
> freqs), so Don's comment really hit home for me.  Several years ago I 
> debated buying a home theater system with prof. speakers as I 
> wondered if I could discern the improvement.  I found that having 
> very linear response from 50-Hz to 20KHz improved understanding of 
> voice on the TV as well as enjoyable music.

Edward,

My last hearing test, I asked for and received a copy of my hearing
results.  I used to listen to CW at 650 Hz., and noticed that my speed
was slowing down as my hearing got worse over time.  

I noted a big dip in my hearing response at 600 Hz. from the results of
the hearing test.  I then changed the spot frequency from 650 to 540,
which is not nearly as depressed, I copy CW MUCH faster as a result of
that change.   

I in essence, have used the K3 EQ to adjust for my hearing deficiencies,
producing something much flatter between 300 to 3000 Hz. than I would be
hearing without the EQ.  

Over all this has really helped both my CW and SSB receive ability.  

--
73's, and thanks,
Dave (NK7Z)
For software/hardware reviews see:
http://www.nk7z.net

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speakers - Optimal Frequency Range?

Gary Gregory-2
In reply to this post by Martin Sole-3
Hmmm....thinking about what Martin wrote, a K3Sn....kinda like Snorkel?
Gary

-----Original Message-----
From: "Martin Sole" <[hidden email]>
Sent: ‎17/‎10/‎2016 2:21 PM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Speakers - Optimal Frequency Range?

It's been doing the rounds for years in one form or another. I remember
trying one from a 70's or 80's ARRL H&K book. a 45 degree PVC pipe bend
of suitable diameter, 3 or 4 inches. Suitably fixed to the top of the
radio, blu-tak or whatever. Paint to match. Very useful to focus the sound.

I'm sure a suitably embellished matching "K-pipe", available soon no
doubt, will be even better ;-)


Martin, HS0ZED



On 17/10/2016 06:36, Mark via Elecraft wrote:

> Re:   "Back in the K2 days, many hams folded some stiff card or paper to make such a deflector to tape to the top of their rigs."
>
> That idea was highlighted again in May 2016 QST Hints & Kinks, pg 63.
>
> Mark,
> KE6BB
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speakers - Optimal Frequency Range?

Jim Brown-10
In reply to this post by NK7Z
Your logic is good, as usual. But let's look at the physics of
loudspeakers, which I tried to do on an earlier post. A SMALL diaphragm
has better dispersion of high frequencies, while it doesn't produce loud
bass. We don't need loud bass, so a GOOD small diaphragm loudspeaker is
what we need. And that is EXACTLY what Elecraft uses in the K2 and both
versions of the K3.

The late Dick Heyser famously said that "trying to describe an audio
device or system using only frequency response is like trying to write
Shakespeare with only one word in your vocabulary. In addition, to have
any meaning, a frequency response spec must include +/- dB limits and it
must include angular dispersion. VERY few consumer loudspeakers do that
-- they simply quote upper and lower limits.  Many cheap loudspeakers
(and headphones) have very bumpy frequency response, and those bumps
create phase distortion that degrades speech intelligibility.

So, to repeat my earlier advice, the best loudspeaker for ham radio is
one that has smooth response from about 300 Hz to about 3 kHz and has
wide, uniform dispersion within those limits. In other words, it sounds
the same both on and off axis. Loudspeakers that cover a wider frequency
range are FINE, but don't pay extra to get one. A loudspeaker with wider
response would reproduce lower lows and higher highs, but our ham rigs
(at least the good ones when well adjusted) limit audio to a range of
about 300 - 3,000 Hz in the IF.

There is no good reason to buy a speaker rated for 300 - 3,000 Hz. What
we want is one with good performance within that range, and most that do
will have at least another octave or two above and below those limits.
(An octave is 2:1 frequency)

BTW -- I purposely set my RXEQ flat because I primarily work CW, and I
want to hear the off-frequency signals that may be very low or very high
in frequency, and I limit frequency response on SSB with the settings of
my IF filters.

73, Jim K9YC

On Sun,10/16/2016 10:44 PM, Dave Cole wrote:
> So, as I said in my original post, it is the most efficient use of the
> hardware is to use a limited response speaker.  No need for high end
> stereo speakers on a K3...  That said, I may put on some better speakers
> on my K3 because in the long run it is a bit less stressful on my
> ears...:)


______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speakers - Optimal Frequency Range?

MaverickNH
In reply to this post by Wes Stewart-2
Seems I can't go wrong with Elecraft, Phonema or Palstar speakers, assuming the wallet factor is a near-draw at too expensive :-)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speakers - Optimal Frequency Range?

Phillip Lontz
I have spent may years in “hi end” audio… some building some selling some just fooling around. Does wire matter? is there a difference between tubes and soild state? Can I hear 20K? does it matter if I can’t hear 20K? Why build a wide band amp if you can hear it?

All these questions really don't matter one bit.

The ONLY question the listener need ask…

Do I LIKE how it sounds?

That's it folks, no more no less.

Simplistic… yep sure is.

A few years back I was attending an audio show in Denver with a few “audio” friends. We would typically visit different rooms together and give a listen to the various systems in each room.
To my surprise, we all had different ideas about what system sounded good.
I like room 990 but Glen said it sucked.
He liked the system in 512 but to me it nearly drove me to drinking.
Chris loved 234 but the rest of us were sure he was ready for the funny farm.

We all “hear” differently…
I love how my K3 sounds with high end speakers left and right side... and a fine digital amp that drives the speakers.
I eq the crap out of the K3 after 8K and set the tone of my CW note to 440… Near a natural “C”.
to me that sounds easy and warm.

But to my old ears the best tone in the world was and is a fine old Drake or a Collins pure analog signal run thru a nice 8" alnico speaker in an open baffle.

That, to me, is simply the best.

Phil
K5SSR
Santa Fe
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speakers - Optimal Frequency Range?

Doug Person-4
Wow Phil, right on.  My first career was a buyer for an audio chain.  I
listened to everything they brought in.  My assistant and my secretary
and I NEVER agreed on what system sounded best. I would think a speaker
that is reasonably flat from 200 hz to maybe 5khz with low mechanical
distortion and good power handling would provide a decent baseline.  
After that - your warm tones are my screeching trebles; your full bass
is my headache- inducing low range.

I use a quality, small bookshelf speaker and then use the K3's equalizer
to make the sound fill into the peaks and valleys of my ear's response
curve.

$50 would probably net you a pair of small Sony, Polk, KLH, JBL or even
Pyle. New or used - you can't beat a nice rigid box with a woofer and a
tweeter.

Other interesting options are line-out to a Bluetooth audio source and
then to one of the many Bluetooth wireless speaker systems.  Or to a
small stereo hifi amplifier. The K3 has stereo line output - a nice pair
of bookshelf speakers left and right would definitely give you the best
sound the K3/K3s is capable of producing (especially the K3s or an
upgraded K3).

A good audio setup will amaze you when you talk to another properly
adjusted radio with a good microphone.  There is a very broad range in
the quality of signals on HF SSB.  From dreadful to beautiful.  I
recommend setting up your station for the very best receive quality your
radio can produce - which in the case of the K3, is substantial.

Doug -- K0DXV

On 10/17/2016 4:20 PM, Phil Townsend Lontz wrote:

> I have spent may years in “hi end” audio… some building some selling some just fooling around. Does wire matter? is there a difference between tubes and soild state? Can I hear 20K? does it matter if I can’t hear 20K? Why build a wide band amp if you can hear it?
>
> All these questions really don't matter one bit.
>
> The ONLY question the listener need ask…
>
> Do I LIKE how it sounds?
>
> That's it folks, no more no less.
>
> Simplistic… yep sure is.
>
> A few years back I was attending an audio show in Denver with a few “audio” friends. We would typically visit different rooms together and give a listen to the various systems in each room.
> To my surprise, we all had different ideas about what system sounded good.
> I like room 990 but Glen said it sucked.
> He liked the system in 512 but to me it nearly drove me to drinking.
> Chris loved 234 but the rest of us were sure he was ready for the funny farm.
>
> We all “hear” differently…
> I love how my K3 sounds with high end speakers left and right side... and a fine digital amp that drives the speakers.
> I eq the crap out of the K3 after 8K and set the tone of my CW note to 440… Near a natural “C”.
> to me that sounds easy and warm.
>
> But to my old ears the best tone in the world was and is a fine old Drake or a Collins pure analog signal run thru a nice 8" alnico speaker in an open baffle.
>
> That, to me, is simply the best.
>
> Phil
> K5SSR
> Santa Fe
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speakers - Optimal Frequency Range?

Jim Brown-10
On Mon,10/17/2016 7:56 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
> Of course the room in which the speaker is used has a huge effect too.

When you're sitting right in front of a loudspeaker you're in its near
field. That causes what you hear to be dominated by direct sound from
the loudspeaker. The loudspeaker(s) excites the room, but you're so
close to the loudspeaker that you don't hear the room response. Most
recording studios have a pair of high quality loudspeakers mounted on
top of the console for exactly that purpose. They also have a larger
pair that DOES excite the room.

> I dread to think we'd require anechoic chambers for Hamshacks!

Anechoic chambers are TEST environments, they are lousy listening
environments.

On Mon,10/17/2016 7:26 PM, Doug Person wrote:
> A good audio setup will amaze you when you talk to another properly
> adjusted radio with a good microphone.

All it takes for excellent receive sound quality is a decent pair of
headphones. The CM500, Sony MDR7506, and Etymotic Research ER4 are
excellent choices. There are other good choices, but these are well
established, widely available, and not expensive. All are VERY
comfortable for LOOONG contest weekends (although comfort in the ER4
depends on matching the ear piece to your ear).

73, Jim K9YC

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
12