Re: [Phys-l] an all-too-predictable blackout

[Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>]

On 2011, Sep 09, , at 11:55, Rauber, Joel wrote:

> Auditory quality is very subjective.  It is also conflated with inaccurate memory and the deterioration of my own auditory sensory apparatus.  I.e. 45-55 year old ears judging cell phones compared to 5-25 year old ears on an old black Ma Bell rotary.  Yes my brain receives worse auditory signals in my usage of new technology.  Is this all due to the quality of the phones?  Most decidedly NO!  To many variables; but I do suspect that the speakers were better in my old rotary than in my cell phone; but perhaps it is more the connections that our better.  By better I do not mean flat frequency response over the human 18 year-old auditory range.
>
> Etc. etc.  after all, I did partly label my post as being in part nostalgia


I have half a dozen rotaries  and even a coupala candlesticks  -- I could send you one to compare saving a trip to the local antique store (out here $45).


bc  has a friend who lubed the governor so the dial was much faster.


p.s.  A sci. faire project measure the response of various 'phone instruments.  The candlestick has an ~ 5 vcm steel diaphragm with an ~ one cm iris.  the magnetic bias is a horse shoe PM.    I suspect the electret michs (I assume that's what they use) has a much better "fidelity" than the old carbon granule ones, which I have a box of -- somewhere.


Story (a repeat?)  I built, < 5th, grade a very sensitive mich.:   notch cut in two size D cell carbons, mechanical pencil carbon on the notches - hdphones, #6 cell, and the carbons in series.  I was able to coax a fly to walk on the sound board (cigar box lid.) as claimed by the book,  audible!