On Sep 21, 2009, at 4:14 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: > > A clean "square sided" audio response that passes 150-200 Hz > to 2800-3000 Hz (2.8 KHz bandwidth) with a "notch" between > 750 and 1100 Hz and a response that rises at 3 - 6 dB per > octave between 1000 and 3000 Hz is a thing of joy to hear. > > Such a response is very efficient use of bandwidth, is > easy to understand but not "harsh" and almost "natural" > sounding. Those who boost bass below 150-200 Hz do nothing > but make their audio "muddy" - particularly if the bass boost > is followed by any compression/clipping - and difficult to > tune.
It's "natural" if all of your friends are parrots. This is ridiculous. No one here is advocating 20Hz-20Khz as a regular option on the ham bands. (Well, you would if you really wanted to sound like YOU instead of a parrot, but that's another issue). There is nothing "natural" sounding about what you propose. Unless you have really bad hearing, or or just so used to thinking that nothing sounds better than a KWM-2 that anything else doesn't work. All of this "efficiency" stuff is smokescreen. You sound like a human being or you don't. You can understand (out of context) what the guy on the other end is saying or not. No one here is advocating using 20Hz to 20Khz transmit bandwidth in the context of "good amateur practice. So why is there so much hard core insistence than we should have bad audio ALL of the time. Grant/NQ5T ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
