Favorite Headphones Question
 

I've been using walmart or cheap radio shack phones that my kids give
me. I don't think more expensive phones would do me any good cause I
just listen to talk radio and never music.
I've been using the kind with foam puffys. Maybe I will spend 25bucks
for a pair of the Sennheiser HD201. They are full sized. Check out
the expensive ones at the bottom of the page.

http://www.headphone.com/products/headphones/full-size/

So do you have a favorite headphone? Bose? Koss? Sennheiser?

regards,
NEO

Favorite Headphones Question
 

N9NEO wrote:
I've been using walmart or cheap radio shack phones that my kids give
me. I don't think more expensive phones would do me any good cause I
just listen to talk radio and never music.
I've been using the kind with foam puffys. Maybe I will spend 25bucks
for a pair of the Sennheiser HD201. They are full sized. Check out
the expensive ones at the bottom of the page.

http://www.headphone.com/products/headphones/full-size/

So do you have a favorite headphone? Bose? Koss? Sennheiser?

regards,
NEO



Sennheiser HD414's
Sennheiser PXC300
David Clark H100-DC

Favorite Headphones Question
 

N9NEO wrote:
I've been using walmart or cheap radio shack phones that my kids give
me. I don't think more expensive phones would do me any good cause I
just listen to talk radio and never music.
I've been using the kind with foam puffys. Maybe I will spend 25bucks
for a pair of the Sennheiser HD201. They are full sized. Check out
the expensive ones at the bottom of the page.

http://www.headphone.com/products/headphones/full-size/

So do you have a favorite headphone? Bose? Koss? Sennheiser?

regards,
NEO

30 year old Pioneer full headphones I picked up new in the box at an
estate sale for practically nothing.

Favorite Headphones Question
 

"N9NEO" wrote in message
ups.com...
I've been using walmart or cheap radio shack phones that my kids give
me. I don't think more expensive phones would do me any good cause I
just listen to talk radio and never music.
I've been using the kind with foam puffys. Maybe I will spend 25bucks
for a pair of the Sennheiser HD201. They are full sized. Check out
the expensive ones at the bottom of the page.

http://www.headphone.com/products/headphones/full-size/

So do you have a favorite headphone? Bose? Koss? Sennheiser?

regards,
NEO

I still have my TRIMM earphones which I bought new
in the mid-30's. VE7AFN.

Favorite Headphones Question
 

N9NEO wrote:

I've been using walmart or cheap radio shack phones that my kids give
me. I don't think more expensive phones would do me any good cause I
just listen to talk radio and never music.
I've been using the kind with foam puffys. Maybe I will spend 25bucks
for a pair of the Sennheiser HD201. They are full sized. Check out
the expensive ones at the bottom of the page.

http://www.headphone.com/products/headphones/full-size/

So do you have a favorite headphone? Bose? Koss? Sennheiser?

My Archer Dynamic 16-Ohm Headphones (Radio Shack).

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Favorite Headphones Question
 

N9NEO wrote:
I've been using walmart or cheap radio shack phones that my kids give
me. I don't think more expensive phones would do me any good cause I
just listen to talk radio and never music.
I've been using the kind with foam puffys. Maybe I will spend 25bucks
for a pair of the Sennheiser HD201. They are full sized. Check out
the expensive ones at the bottom of the page.

http://www.headphone.com/products/headphones/full-size/

So do you have a favorite headphone? Bose? Koss? Sennheiser?

regards,
NEO

Sennheiser HD424
Beyer DT100
Sennheiser ?? Folding set desiged for use with an MP3 player,
they work well with the DX398 and my Rio Chiba I use during PT.

Sony Active Noise Canceling Sony(R) MDR-NC5 Noise-Canceling.
A friend loaned me a pair and it is an odd feeling to turn on the
earphones
and the background noise simply vanishes, or goes down by at least 20
to 30dB. I am still trying to decide if I like these. Time will tell I
guess.

It has been my expereince better earphones can help by not adding
unwanted coloration to the audio. Cheap ones "smear" the sound.

And yea, I know this sounds like I am pushing some sort of audio snake
oil. I still have a big problem with even thinking about "clean" audio
in a
SWL context. After all, the signal is pretty well mangled by the time
it
gets to our radios. For humour I like to browse some of the "high end"
audio
pages and laugh at the nonesense that people push. Burn in your CD,
amp,
speakers and Oxy free wire with a "white noise" source. They are almost
as funny as the TV series Jericho.

Terry

Favorite Headphones Question
 

I use the Sennheiser HD580 headphones for DX'ing voice's. They are full
range but DO NOT pump up the 300 -100 hz area like so many "HIFi"
headphones.

I like the JRC ST-3 for CW. All midrange. No highs & only go down to
maybe 90 hz ???

I also like the ST-3 during warmer weather when there are Lightning
crashes. They seem to soften the crashes abit.

The Heil ProSet headphones sound really nice as well. They are not
nuetral in Freq response as they seem to be "voiced" with the typical
smilley face on a equalizer but do help readability on voices but not
as well as the HD580's do.

73, Ken

N9NEO wrote:
I've been using walmart or cheap radio shack phones that my kids give
me. I don't think more expensive phones would do me any good cause I
just listen to talk radio and never music.
I've been using the kind with foam puffys. Maybe I will spend 25bucks
for a pair of the Sennheiser HD201. They are full sized. Check out
the expensive ones at the bottom of the page.

http://www.headphone.com/products/headphones/full-size/

So do you have a favorite headphone? Bose? Koss? Sennheiser?

regards,
NEO

Favorite Headphones Question
 

On 30 Nov 2006 20:17:33 -0800, "N9NEO"
wrote:

I've been using walmart or cheap radio shack phones that my kids give
me. I don't think more expensive phones would do me any good cause I
just listen to talk radio and never music.
I've been using the kind with foam puffys. Maybe I will spend 25bucks
for a pair of the Sennheiser HD201. They are full sized. Check out
the expensive ones at the bottom of the page.

http://www.headphone.com/products/headphones/full-size/

So do you have a favorite headphone? Bose? Koss? Sennheiser?

regards,
NEO
$30 Yamaha full size padded phones.

Favorite Headphones Question
 

"Heterodyne" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:17:33 -0800, N9NEO wrote:

I've been using walmart or cheap radio shack phones that my kids give
me. I don't think more expensive phones would do me any good cause I
just listen to talk radio and never music.
I've been using the kind with foam puffys. Maybe I will spend 25bucks
for a pair of the Sennheiser HD201. They are full sized. Check out
the expensive ones at the bottom of the page.

http://www.headphone.com/products/headphones/full-size/

So do you have a favorite headphone? Bose? Koss? Sennheiser?

regards,
NEO

Sony MDR V150

DITTO ON THE SONY MDR - V150
Great for IPOD as well

CL

Favorite Headphones Question
 

ABSOLUTELY on the Sony MDR V150 for modern radios.

But the BEST headphones for shortwave listening which I have EVER used
(and still use occasionally) are the Clevite "Brush" Crystal Headphones
Model BA-200. They have restricted frequency range to minimize static
and hiss, and overall clear and bright sound up to about 5000 Hz. When
you can't "read" a signal through a loudspeaker, these come to the
rescue! Unfortunately the impedance is so high (45,000[!] Ohms at 1000
Hz) that the volume is greatly attenuated when using them with modern
radios. But used with my old Lafayette HE-10 (or any other classic tube
receiver), they are tops. And I mean TOPS! I bought mine in July 1962
and they are still as good as new!

Best,

Joe

Caveat Lector wrote:
"Heterodyne" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:17:33 -0800, N9NEO wrote:

I've been using walmart or cheap radio shack phones that my kids give
me. I don't think more expensive phones would do me any good cause I
just listen to talk radio and never music.
I've been using the kind with foam puffys. Maybe I will spend 25bucks
for a pair of the Sennheiser HD201. They are full sized. Check out
the expensive ones at the bottom of the page.

http://www.headphone.com/products/headphones/full-size/

So do you have a favorite headphone? Bose? Koss? Sennheiser?

regards,
NEO

Sony MDR V150

DITTO ON THE SONY MDR - V150
Great for IPOD as well

CL

Favorite Headphones Question
 

In article . com,
"Joe Analssandrini" wrote:


Caveat Lector wrote:
"Heterodyne" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:17:33 -0800, N9NEO wrote:

I've been using walmart or cheap radio shack phones that my kids give
me. I don't think more expensive phones would do me any good cause I
just listen to talk radio and never music.
I've been using the kind with foam puffys. Maybe I will spend 25bucks
for a pair of the Sennheiser HD201. They are full sized. Check out
the expensive ones at the bottom of the page.

http://www.headphone.com/products/headphones/full-size/

So do you have a favorite headphone? Bose? Koss? Sennheiser?

regards,
NEO

Sony MDR V150

DITTO ON THE SONY MDR - V150
Great for IPOD as well
ABSOLUTELY on the Sony MDR V150 for modern radios.

But the BEST headphones for shortwave listening which I have EVER used
(and still use occasionally) are the Clevite "Brush" Crystal Headphones
Model BA-200. They have restricted frequency range to minimize static
and hiss, and overall clear and bright sound up to about 5000 Hz. When
you can't "read" a signal through a loudspeaker, these come to the
rescue! Unfortunately the impedance is so high (45,000[!] Ohms at 1000
Hz) that the volume is greatly attenuated when using them with modern
radios. But used with my old Lafayette HE-10 (or any other classic tube
receiver), they are tops. And I mean TOPS! I bought mine in July 1962
and they are still as good as new!

I've been happy with the Sony MDR-V600.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Favorite Headphones Question
 

Joe Analssandrini wrote:
ABSOLUTELY on the Sony MDR V150 for modern radios.

But the BEST headphones for shortwave listening which I have EVER used
(and still use occasionally) are the Clevite "Brush" Crystal Headphones
Model BA-200. They have restricted frequency range to minimize static
and hiss, and overall clear and bright sound up to about 5000 Hz. When
you can't "read" a signal through a loudspeaker, these come to the
rescue! Unfortunately the impedance is so high (45,000[!] Ohms at 1000
Hz) that the volume is greatly attenuated when using them with modern
radios. But used with my old Lafayette HE-10 (or any other classic tube
receiver), they are tops. And I mean TOPS! I bought mine in July 1962
and they are still as good as new!

Best,

Joe

Try using an audio output transformer, plate to speaker, in reverse.
Should
give you quite a boast on the audio level with no ill effects. It might
be a good
idea to put either a 10K pot oo a 1 to 2 K resistor in series to help
control
any low level background noise common in most recveivers.

Terry

Favorite Headphones Question
 

I have been mildly interested in the Bose headsets I've seen advertised
on TV lately. But over $300 for a set of headphones? Those things
better transmit and receive on 160 through 10 meters if I'm gonna pay
that kind of a price.

I can just picture my cats deciding to "snack" on the cord, just like
they did to my $40 RatShack headsets....

73, Merry Christmas from Bill - WA8MEA
http://HamRadioFun.com

************************************************** **************
N9NEO wrote:
I've been using walmart or cheap radio shack phones that my kids give
me. I don't think more expensive phones would do me any good cause I
just listen to talk radio and never music.
I've been using the kind with foam puffys. Maybe I will spend 25bucks
for a pair of the Sennheiser HD201. They are full sized. Check out
the expensive ones at the bottom of the page.

http://www.headphone.com/products/headphones/full-size/

So do you have a favorite headphone? Bose? Koss? Sennheiser?

regards,
NEO

Favorite Headphones Question
 

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...

Sennheiser HD414's
Sennheiser PXC300
David Clark H100-DC

Peter do you happen to know what the difference is between the 414 and
414SL is? I picked up a pair of SL's last week ($5) that are in very good
shape (look like they just sat in the box for years) but need new pads. I
found
pads for the 414's on ebay but they state that they don't fit the SL's. They
sure
sound good plugged into my Sansui but would be much better with pads. RM~

PS, the actual phone measures 2 5/8 in.

Favorite Headphones Question
 

What do you want to listen to, the audio of the radio program or the noise
from your receiver?
For listening to talk radio programs and SWL a HiFi set of cans will give
you listeners fatigue.

For serious weak signal SW DXing I use Kenwood HS-5 which limits the audio
frequencies to the critical audio spectrum where my ear is most sensitive
and the audio that is available from a radio broadcast.
For portable/casual SWL & talk radio I use the Sennheiser PX-200 whose audio
frequency response cuts out in the high audio frequencies which are not
present in radio audio, just receiver noise - fatigue.

If you want HiFi look at Grado cans.


"N9NEO" wrote in message
ups.com...
I've been using walmart or cheap radio shack phones that my kids give
me. I don't think more expensive phones would do me any good cause I
just listen to talk radio and never music.
I've been using the kind with foam puffys. Maybe I will spend 25bucks
for a pair of the Sennheiser HD201. They are full sized. Check out
the expensive ones at the bottom of the page.

http://www.headphone.com/products/headphones/full-size/

So do you have a favorite headphone? Bose? Koss? Sennheiser?

regards,
NEO

Favorite Headphones Question
 

In article ,
"del.icio.us" wrote:

"N9NEO" wrote in message
ups.com...
I've been using walmart or cheap radio shack phones that my kids
give me. I don't think more expensive phones would do me any good
cause I just listen to talk radio and never music. I've been using
the kind with foam puffys. Maybe I will spend 25bucks for a pair
of the Sennheiser HD201. They are full sized. Check out the
expensive ones at the bottom of the page.

http://www.headphone.com/products/headphones/full-size/

So do you have a favorite headphone? Bose? Koss? Sennheiser?

What do you want to listen to, the audio of the radio program or the
noise from your receiver? For listening to talk radio programs and
SWL a HiFi set of cans will give you listeners fatigue.

For serious weak signal SW DXing I use Kenwood HS-5 which limits the
audio frequencies to the critical audio spectrum where my ear is most
sensitive and the audio that is available from a radio broadcast. For
portable/casual SWL & talk radio I use the Sennheiser PX-200 whose
audio frequency response cuts out in the high audio frequencies which
are not present in radio audio, just receiver noise - fatigue.

If you want HiFi look at Grado cans.

I keep reading these posts about using headphones or speakers that limit
the frequency response. I think that is a poor strategy. Get a high
fidelity speakers and headphones and use the radio tone controls and
filters to limit the response when conditions create noisy signal
reception. When reception is good you get the fullest bandwidth possible
for the best sound. That's what I do to enjoy program listening, which
comprises most of my listening.

Besides the the filter and tone controls you can also slow the AGC
response when conditions create noisy conditions.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Favorite Headphones Question
 

Rob Mills wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...

Sennheiser HD414's
Sennheiser PXC300
David Clark H100-DC

Peter do you happen to know what the difference is between the 414 and
414SL is? I picked up a pair of SL's last week ($5) that are in very good
shape (look like they just sat in the box for years) but need new pads. I
found
pads for the 414's on ebay but they state that they don't fit the SL's. They
sure
sound good plugged into my Sansui but would be much better with pads. RM~

PS, the actual phone measures 2 5/8 in.





Sorry to say, but I've not kept up with the 414 line like I should
have. So, I don't have an answer to your question. So, I guess I'll have
to do some research.

If you need pads, though, you can order them through any supply
outlet, like Full Compass Systems.

Favorite Headphones Question
 

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
news:Q0Nch.145235

So, I guess I'll have to do some research.

I've looked just about everyplace and didn't find anything on them except
for the mention on ebay that the HD414 pads don't fit. The women I purchased
them from said she paid $75 for them new which I suspect was about 25 or so
years ago (I figure it took that long for them to crumble like they had).
Thanks anyway Peter. RM~

PS, I'll get some pads if I have to make em out of some dishwashing
sponges. ;-)

Favorite Headphones Question
 

Rob Mills wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
news:Q0Nch.145235

So, I guess I'll have to do some research.

I've looked just about everyplace and didn't find anything on them except
for the mention on ebay that the HD414 pads don't fit. The women I purchased
them from said she paid $75 for them new which I suspect was about 25 or so
years ago (I figure it took that long for them to crumble like they had).
Thanks anyway Peter. RM~

PS, I'll get some pads if I have to make em out of some dishwashing
sponges. ;-)









The May 1985 issue of Stereo Review has a review of the 414SL's, you
can probably purchase one online from Roger Russell:

http://www.roger-russell.com/magrev.htm



Found some sources for 414SL earpads, and from the pictures, it looks
like the SL model has a larger driver, with a thinner pad than the
HD-414. Pads are still available from some sources. My rep at Full
Compass Systems says their parts guy can hunt them down for you, or you
can order them from the UK at:



http://www.dolphinmusic.co.uk/page/s...roduct_id/5386


Or


http://www.headphonesdirect.co.uk/

Favorite Headphones Question
 

Rob Mills wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
news:Q0Nch.145235

So, I guess I'll have to do some research.

I've looked just about everyplace and didn't find anything on them except
for the mention on ebay that the HD414 pads don't fit. The women I purchased
them from said she paid $75 for them new which I suspect was about 25 or so
years ago (I figure it took that long for them to crumble like they had).
Thanks anyway Peter. RM~

PS, I'll get some pads if I have to make em out of some dishwashing
sponges. ;-)

While not as pretty as the factory pads, Imade accpetable ones from
~1/2" open core foam.
My 424 pads crumbled after about 8 years of daily use. I have to
replace the homemade
ones every yar or so, but the price is right. Of course they are not
Sennheiser yellow ansd
the fashon police would barf.

Don't use closed core foam as very little sound will get through!

BTDT

Terry

Favorite Headphones Question
 

Telamon wrote:

I keep reading these posts about using headphones or speakers that limit
the frequency response. I think that is a poor strategy. Get a high
fidelity speakers and headphones and use the radio tone controls and
filters to limit the response when conditions create noisy signal
reception. When reception is good you get the fullest bandwidth possible
for the best sound. That's what I do to enjoy program listening, which
comprises most of my listening.



For the most part, you're correct: shaping the audio at the receiver
is the more versatile solution. But consider that the audio stages of
most comm receivers tend to have a higher noise floor, and higher
distortion than a hi-fi music listening system for which the wideband
headphones were created. Wideband headphones will exacerbate not only
the distortion components of the audio, but the noise as well. And it's
the noise, more than the distortion, that will just flat wear you out
with long term use. To the degree that, as the mind adapts to the
listening conditions, you'll actually experience subtle, but important,
shifts to your natural hearing sensitivities. Eventually, with
sufficient exposure, you could begin to lose some sensitivity at
specific frequency ranges. This noise is generally not variable with
volume, but, being a component level product of the electronics, is more
or less a constant. Shaped headphone response reduces it's apparent
presence, and reduces tendencies to fatigue.

Consider also, that SW audio, itself, is frequency shaped, but
atmospheric and electronic noises are not. Even entertainment
programming is bandwidth limited. So, at best, wideband headphones or
speakers will accurately reproduce the noise, while but the program
audio will still be bandwidth limited. Often no more than 5khz bandwidth
is transmitted. And comm audio, itself, is of higher distortion than
wideband entertainment audio, and that distortion, with higher end
headphones will be far more irritating than with shaped response. ICOM
R71 audio is legendary for being horrid, despite the fact that the audio
stage amp is actually quite low in distortion. The bulk of the
distortions are generated in the mixer and detector stages, with
distortion components approaching 20%. Believe me when I tell you,
headphones don't make it any easier to listen to. JRC audio isn't much
better. And when listening to SW, also bear in mind that the audio is
distorted at the transmitter.

Frequency shaping at the receiver, in such cases can reduce, but not
eliminate, the offending distortion products, and highly detailed
headphones can permit these products to be heard anyway. And the
offending thermal noise is still there, which can now be easily
distinguished and work it's fatigue over the electronically shaped audio.

It's in cases like these that users often prefer to use a pair of
Trimm's or Brush Clevites for long term listening. As bad as they sound,
they eliminate the offending noises and distortions from the audio
reaching the ear canal. Granted, they do introduce distortions of their
own, but often these distortions are far less offensive than the noises
and distortions accurately reproduced through wideband headphones and
speakers.

Some broadcasters I know still prefer to use Trimms or Clevites when
working on the air. First, they match damn near anything, and you can
listen to phono cartridge output with them, so loading is less of an
issue. But the main idea is that the audio is less detailed, so they
don't hear the artifacts in the air monitor, but rather simply use the
phones as a reference to detect that they are, in fact, on the air, and
rely on their instincts and experience to fill in the details. They can
then concentrate on what they're doing, instead of listening to themselves.

What it comes down to, in the final analysis, is personal
preference. And in that, if what you're doing is working for you, then
there is no need to change. But if you notice ear fatigue after a period
of extended listening, it may be time to consider an alternative strategy.

Favorite Headphones Question
 

D Peter Maus wrote:
Telamon wrote:

I keep reading these posts about using headphones or speakers that limit
the frequency response. I think that is a poor strategy. Get a high
fidelity speakers and headphones and use the radio tone controls and
filters to limit the response when conditions create noisy signal
reception. When reception is good you get the fullest bandwidth possible
for the best sound. That's what I do to enjoy program listening, which
comprises most of my listening.



For the most part, you're correct: shaping the audio at the receiver
is the more versatile solution. But consider that the audio stages of
most comm receivers tend to have a higher noise floor, and higher
distortion than a hi-fi music listening system for which the wideband
headphones were created. Wideband headphones will exacerbate not only
the distortion components of the audio, but the noise as well. And it's
the noise, more than the distortion, that will just flat wear you out
with long term use. To the degree that, as the mind adapts to the
listening conditions, you'll actually experience subtle, but important,
shifts to your natural hearing sensitivities. Eventually, with
sufficient exposure, you could begin to lose some sensitivity at
specific frequency ranges. This noise is generally not variable with
volume, but, being a component level product of the electronics, is more
or less a constant. Shaped headphone response reduces it's apparent
presence, and reduces tendencies to fatigue.

Consider also, that SW audio, itself, is frequency shaped, but
atmospheric and electronic noises are not. Even entertainment
programming is bandwidth limited. So, at best, wideband headphones or
speakers will accurately reproduce the noise, while but the program
audio will still be bandwidth limited. Often no more than 5khz bandwidth
is transmitted. And comm audio, itself, is of higher distortion than
wideband entertainment audio, and that distortion, with higher end
headphones will be far more irritating than with shaped response. ICOM
R71 audio is legendary for being horrid, despite the fact that the audio
stage amp is actually quite low in distortion. The bulk of the
distortions are generated in the mixer and detector stages, with
distortion components approaching 20%. Believe me when I tell you,
headphones don't make it any easier to listen to. JRC audio isn't much
better. And when listening to SW, also bear in mind that the audio is
distorted at the transmitter.

Frequency shaping at the receiver, in such cases can reduce, but not
eliminate, the offending distortion products, and highly detailed
headphones can permit these products to be heard anyway. And the
offending thermal noise is still there, which can now be easily
distinguished and work it's fatigue over the electronically shaped audio.

It's in cases like these that users often prefer to use a pair of
Trimm's or Brush Clevites for long term listening. As bad as they sound,
they eliminate the offending noises and distortions from the audio
reaching the ear canal. Granted, they do introduce distortions of their
own, but often these distortions are far less offensive than the noises
and distortions accurately reproduced through wideband headphones and
speakers.

Some broadcasters I know still prefer to use Trimms or Clevites when
working on the air. First, they match damn near anything, and you can
listen to phono cartridge output with them, so loading is less of an
issue. But the main idea is that the audio is less detailed, so they
don't hear the artifacts in the air monitor, but rather simply use the
phones as a reference to detect that they are, in fact, on the air, and
rely on their instincts and experience to fill in the details. They can
then concentrate on what they're doing, instead of listening to themselves.

What it comes down to, in the final analysis, is personal
preference. And in that, if what you're doing is working for you, then
there is no need to change. But if you notice ear fatigue after a period
of extended listening, it may be time to consider an alternative strategy.

I have spent a lot of time listening to and trying to quantify some of
the
variables in a HF-SW audio chain. I have found that while distortion is
a very
important issue, it not the "do all and end all". As you point out the
noise
bandwidth and program audio bandwidth are very different.I have found
that
there are apparantly conflicting effects. The "best" audio systems are
flat in repsonse. However, "best" is not the best when real world
effects
of weak signals and atomspheric noise are considered. In most real
world
situations some sort of bandwidth limiting is needed. Having good and
effective
IF fitlers is a must, but not the end fo the banwidth issue. Speakers
or
earphones will often need some sort of frequency shaping. For earphones
I think that the bandwidth response limiting is accomplished with AF
fitlers.
For speakers I think it is much better to have a limited frequency
response
as a natural charactoristics of the transducer set.

For example, I use a pair of Radio Shack Minimus-7 speakers and a pair
of JBL
5.1 surround speakers. The JBLs start rolling off right at 5KHz and by
7KHz they
are essentially mute. I have three speaker options, the Minimus-7
stock, Minmus-7
with the tweeter switched off, which leaves the woofer/midrange that
has very little
response above ~4KHz, and the JBLs. I have found that for good clean
signals the
stock Minimus are great. For bad conditions, say 99% of the time, the
JBLs are
better and for very bad conditions, the Minimus-7's with the tweaters
switched off are
the best choice.

I love my Sennheiser HD-424's but they have flat response out to at
least 15KHz.
For SWl there is nothing out there. I found that by adding a 1K series
resistor
and having several switchable capacitors I can limit the HF response
and improve
intelligibility.

%ALCONS (Percentage Articulation Loss of Consonants) is a little used
measure
of one of the factors that effect intelligibility. In a band limited
voice setting one can't
hear the difference betweenthe words "failing" and "sailing". While we
can't often do
that much to improve the bandwidth limited nature of the singals we
listen to, we
can take steps no to mangle the audio any more then we have too.

My chief complaint about the Trimm's or Clevites is they "ring" Not
completly accurate,
but that is the best discription I can come up for for the effect.

I suspect that each and every SWL will find that the best choice for
them may
not be what anyone found best. Try every earphone set you can get your
hands on
under every signal condition you can. Try to keep notes. Over time you
will arrive
at a comprimise that works for you. What I found best is very unlilkey
to be the bet
for you. As I mentioned once before it is very usefull to have a
hearing test to find
what oddities your hearing has. I have Tinnitus and some serious HF
loss. My wife
has perfect hearing. Our choices for speakers and earphones is very
different.

Terry

Terry

Favorite Headphones Question
 

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...

The May 1985 issue of Stereo Review has a review of the 414SL's, you
can probably purchase one online from Roger Russell:

I may order that just out of curiosity. It also tells me that I was right
that they were over 20 years old.

Found some sources for 414SL earpads, and from the pictures, it looks
like the SL model has a larger driver, with a thinner pad than the
HD-414. Pads are still available from some sources. My rep at Full
Compass Systems says their parts guy can hunt them down for you, or you
can order them from the UK at:

The ear piece is a dab over 2 and 5/8 inch in diameter. If they are that
scarce to find they will probably run more $ than I want to put in to them
so I'll probably look around and find something I can adapt to them. I'll
probably use them for swling as the Clarks get pretty heavy after a bit.
I have several sets of stereo phones now including a like new set of
Sansui SS-20's.
Thanks for looking, RM~

Favorite Headphones Question
 

In article ,
D Peter Maus wrote:

Telamon wrote:

I keep reading these posts about using headphones or speakers that limit
the frequency response. I think that is a poor strategy. Get a high
fidelity speakers and headphones and use the radio tone controls and
filters to limit the response when conditions create noisy signal
reception. When reception is good you get the fullest bandwidth possible
for the best sound. That's what I do to enjoy program listening, which
comprises most of my listening.



For the most part, you're correct: shaping the audio at the receiver
is the more versatile solution. But consider that the audio stages of
most comm receivers tend to have a higher noise floor, and higher
distortion than a hi-fi music listening system for which the wideband
headphones were created. Wideband headphones will exacerbate not only
the distortion components of the audio, but the noise as well. And it's
the noise, more than the distortion, that will just flat wear you out
with long term use. To the degree that, as the mind adapts to the
listening conditions, you'll actually experience subtle, but important,
shifts to your natural hearing sensitivities. Eventually, with
sufficient exposure, you could begin to lose some sensitivity at
specific frequency ranges. This noise is generally not variable with
volume, but, being a component level product of the electronics, is more
or less a constant. Shaped headphone response reduces it's apparent
presence, and reduces tendencies to fatigue.

Consider also, that SW audio, itself, is frequency shaped, but
atmospheric and electronic noises are not. Even entertainment
programming is bandwidth limited. So, at best, wideband headphones or
speakers will accurately reproduce the noise, while but the program
audio will still be bandwidth limited. Often no more than 5khz bandwidth
is transmitted. And comm audio, itself, is of higher distortion than
wideband entertainment audio, and that distortion, with higher end
headphones will be far more irritating than with shaped response. ICOM
R71 audio is legendary for being horrid, despite the fact that the audio
stage amp is actually quite low in distortion. The bulk of the
distortions are generated in the mixer and detector stages, with
distortion components approaching 20%. Believe me when I tell you,
headphones don't make it any easier to listen to. JRC audio isn't much
better. And when listening to SW, also bear in mind that the audio is
distorted at the transmitter.

Frequency shaping at the receiver, in such cases can reduce, but not
eliminate, the offending distortion products, and highly detailed
headphones can permit these products to be heard anyway. And the
offending thermal noise is still there, which can now be easily
distinguished and work it's fatigue over the electronically shaped audio.

It's in cases like these that users often prefer to use a pair of
Trimm's or Brush Clevites for long term listening. As bad as they sound,
they eliminate the offending noises and distortions from the audio
reaching the ear canal. Granted, they do introduce distortions of their
own, but often these distortions are far less offensive than the noises
and distortions accurately reproduced through wideband headphones and
speakers.

Some broadcasters I know still prefer to use Trimms or Clevites when
working on the air. First, they match damn near anything, and you can
listen to phono cartridge output with them, so loading is less of an
issue. But the main idea is that the audio is less detailed, so they
don't hear the artifacts in the air monitor, but rather simply use the
phones as a reference to detect that they are, in fact, on the air, and
rely on their instincts and experience to fill in the details. They can
then concentrate on what they're doing, instead of listening to themselves.

What it comes down to, in the final analysis, is personal
preference. And in that, if what you're doing is working for you, then
there is no need to change. But if you notice ear fatigue after a period
of extended listening, it may be time to consider an alternative strategy.

I can't do much about all the sources of distortion at the transmitter
but I shoot for a flat audio response that I can then tailor with the
aforementioned electronic controls rather then be limited in all cases
by the headphone or speaker selection.

When conditions are good I go as far as 8 KHz wide usually on the
filtering on the RX-340. The drake R8B it's the 6KHz filter and the
passband at 9:00 or 3:00 O'clock position with the tone controls flat.
Similar setup on the AOR7030+.

Usually as interference or noise becomes a problem as signals get weaker
I reduce the bandwidth and use longer AGC times. I might kick in the
preamplifiers or attenuators depending on the situation. The sync
detection goes on for sure. I might also use sideband selection on a AM
signal. The tone controls on the Drake and AOR might go up or down
depending on whether I am trying to copy a weak signal or trying to make
it sound less fatiguing.

As you can see with a flat response headphones or speakers I have
options. Distortion, well I can't do much about that.

I have Sony bookshelf speakers and headphones that really make SW and
AMBCB stations sound great when conditions are good.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Favorite Headphones Question
 

Regardless of what RF filters you use on your receiver, 3KHz, 6KHz, etc,
your receiver's audio amplifier is still reproducing audio which does not
exist in the RF passband. At the very least it is reproducing the
receiver's RF noise floor - hiss. The receiver's audio amp is attempting to
reproduce sound in its full audio passband. The portion of the amp's audio
spectrum that does not contain information will sound like a hiss - noise.
The receivers audio tone controlls will have a limited effect on this hiss.

HiFi cans have their place while listening to talk radio or even HF SWL.
But when attempting to fish out the weakest of audio from the weakest of DX
signals (CW for example) an appropriately audio tailored set of cans will
make listening for that weak audio more successful and less fatigueing when
listening for long periods of time.

Trying to listen to tropical band dx or AM band dx with a set of HiFi cans
is pure audio torture.

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
D Peter Maus wrote:

Telamon wrote:

I keep reading these posts about using headphones or speakers that
limit
the frequency response. I think that is a poor strategy. Get a high
fidelity speakers and headphones and use the radio tone controls and
filters to limit the response when conditions create noisy signal
reception. When reception is good you get the fullest bandwidth
possible
for the best sound. That's what I do to enjoy program listening, which
comprises most of my listening.



For the most part, you're correct: shaping the audio at the receiver
is the more versatile solution. But consider that the audio stages of
most comm receivers tend to have a higher noise floor, and higher
distortion than a hi-fi music listening system for which the wideband
headphones were created. Wideband headphones will exacerbate not only
the distortion components of the audio, but the noise as well. And it's
the noise, more than the distortion, that will just flat wear you out
with long term use. To the degree that, as the mind adapts to the
listening conditions, you'll actually experience subtle, but important,
shifts to your natural hearing sensitivities. Eventually, with
sufficient exposure, you could begin to lose some sensitivity at
specific frequency ranges. This noise is generally not variable with
volume, but, being a component level product of the electronics, is more
or less a constant. Shaped headphone response reduces it's apparent
presence, and reduces tendencies to fatigue.

Consider also, that SW audio, itself, is frequency shaped, but
atmospheric and electronic noises are not. Even entertainment
programming is bandwidth limited. So, at best, wideband headphones or
speakers will accurately reproduce the noise, while but the program
audio will still be bandwidth limited. Often no more than 5khz bandwidth
is transmitted. And comm audio, itself, is of higher distortion than
wideband entertainment audio, and that distortion, with higher end
headphones will be far more irritating than with shaped response. ICOM
R71 audio is legendary for being horrid, despite the fact that the audio
stage amp is actually quite low in distortion. The bulk of the
distortions are generated in the mixer and detector stages, with
distortion components approaching 20%. Believe me when I tell you,
headphones don't make it any easier to listen to. JRC audio isn't much
better. And when listening to SW, also bear in mind that the audio is
distorted at the transmitter.

Frequency shaping at the receiver, in such cases can reduce, but not
eliminate, the offending distortion products, and highly detailed
headphones can permit these products to be heard anyway. And the
offending thermal noise is still there, which can now be easily
distinguished and work it's fatigue over the electronically shaped
audio.

It's in cases like these that users often prefer to use a pair of
Trimm's or Brush Clevites for long term listening. As bad as they sound,
they eliminate the offending noises and distortions from the audio
reaching the ear canal. Granted, they do introduce distortions of their
own, but often these distortions are far less offensive than the noises
and distortions accurately reproduced through wideband headphones and
speakers.

Some broadcasters I know still prefer to use Trimms or Clevites when
working on the air. First, they match damn near anything, and you can
listen to phono cartridge output with them, so loading is less of an
issue. But the main idea is that the audio is less detailed, so they
don't hear the artifacts in the air monitor, but rather simply use the
phones as a reference to detect that they are, in fact, on the air, and
rely on their instincts and experience to fill in the details. They can
then concentrate on what they're doing, instead of listening to
themselves.

What it comes down to, in the final analysis, is personal
preference. And in that, if what you're doing is working for you, then
there is no need to change. But if you notice ear fatigue after a period
of extended listening, it may be time to consider an alternative
strategy.

I can't do much about all the sources of distortion at the transmitter
but I shoot for a flat audio response that I can then tailor with the
aforementioned electronic controls rather then be limited in all cases
by the headphone or speaker selection.

When conditions are good I go as far as 8 KHz wide usually on the
filtering on the RX-340. The drake R8B it's the 6KHz filter and the
passband at 9:00 or 3:00 O'clock position with the tone controls flat.
Similar setup on the AOR7030+.

Usually as interference or noise becomes a problem as signals get weaker
I reduce the bandwidth and use longer AGC times. I might kick in the
preamplifiers or attenuators depending on the situation. The sync
detection goes on for sure. I might also use sideband selection on a AM
signal. The tone controls on the Drake and AOR might go up or down
depending on whether I am trying to copy a weak signal or trying to make
it sound less fatiguing.

As you can see with a flat response headphones or speakers I have
options. Distortion, well I can't do much about that.

I have Sony bookshelf speakers and headphones that really make SW and
AMBCB stations sound great when conditions are good.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Favorite Headphones Question
 

Screw a bunch of headphones! I hate headphones,and ear buds too.I want
Susan Hayward to come love me.I own some auld World War Two
headphones,but y'all www.yall.com won't catch me clamping thingys
on me earbones.
cuhulin

Favorite Headphones Question
 

Het Telamon (I know you have me killfiled) check out the new little
bitty {so,you got a little bitty job in a little bitty city,,,,,,, it's
alrighttttt,,,,, to be a little bittyyyyyyy,,,,,,,,) Bose speaker thangy
at www.bose.com
cuhulin