If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
And no, I won't do stereo. There are good reasons.
I'd be curious to know what they are. ****************************** Stereo In The Aircraft RST does not produce any stereo intercoms, audio panels, headsets, or other devices that reproduce stereo music. If you are absolutely determined to have stereo in your aircraft, you might just as well stop reading now, because anything we have to say isn't going to change your mind. We made a conscious business and engineering decision not to produce any product for stereo. There are good aviation and engineering reasons for this. First, a little background music or listening to the ballgame in a cockpit environment isn't all that bad. Sometimes flying is miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles. On the other hand, I know from my own love of music that when there is a particularly good cut playing on my home stereo and I have the headphones on (try "Sweet Sir Galahad" by Baez or "Minstrel Of The Dawn" by Lightfoot at somewhere slightly below the threshold of pain in the 'phones to see what I mean) that I get totally lost within the music and the world just sort of blurs away. Just about the LAST thing I want in an airplane is a pilot that has zoned out on music and is just holding the controls to have something to do with their hands. That's item #1. Second, stereo is expensive. Yes, I understand that FLYING is expensive, too, but to go to the expense of specially-designed headphones, intercoms, audio panels, and all the rest of it seems to us to be on the other side of reasonable. Our company thrust has, and always will be, to make flying affordable for everybody. That's point #2. Now to the engineering stuff. Suppose you try and take your stereo headset and fly in somebody else's airplane that is "regular airplane". Will your stereo headset work without the trick little switch on the cable to convert it to a monophonic headset? No, you will hear one ear of the conversation only. And what did that little switch do? It put both earphones in parallel, which cut the impedance of the headset in half. Properly designed, this MIGHT not be noticeable to the aircraft radio, or it might. Since airplane radios weren't designed to figure out whether or not you were messing around with a stereo headset, the manufacturer didn't worry about making sure his radio would drive that low of an impedance. Even worse, if somebody else takes his standard aircraft headset and puts it into your stereo airplane jack, it will short out one of the channels. Depending on the design of the intercom, the best you can hope for is that one stereo channel will be dead in everybody's headphones. Second worst is that the short on that channel will blow out the amplifier for that channel. In a really lousy design, that short will cause the whole intercom/audio panel to fail, leaving you without any headphone audio at all. Given all these reasons, RST has decided not to produce any stereo equipment. While it probably won't sway your decision for stereo in your airplane, we thought you should at least consider these problems. Jim ************************************************** |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
You gave three reasons to not produce stereo equipment for aircraft.
1: One can get lost in the music... to which I ask whether it matters whether it is in stereo or not. 2: Cost of stereo... to which I ask whether the second channel really is that much more expensive. In the case of a headphone, I don't see where the extraordinary expense would come from. 3: Compatibility... well, ok if you are designing entire panels (which I assume RST is). But there are compatibility issues with mono too. If others are producing stereo, you have the same issues. I would also point out an advantage to stereo, used properly (which I've actually never seen)... and that is the ability to put the intercom (mostly) in one ear while ATC is (mostly) in the other, or to put Com1 on the left and Com2 on the right (which would be a godsend when trying to get the ATIS or monitoring CTAF while staying with ATC). Jose r.a.owning trimmed - I don't follow that group -- The price of freedom is... well... freedom. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Furthermore...
"Jose" wrote in message . .. You gave three reasons to not produce stereo equipment for aircraft. 1: One can get lost in the music... to which I ask whether it matters whether it is in stereo or not. IMHO, it probably does, assuming the music has been recorded to take full advantage of stereo (much music is not). However, that's irrelevant since at least some of the market for the device would be for people not flying the airplane, and for the remainder it's the pilot's prerogative to make that choice. For a business run by someone who also has a paternalistic "I know what's best for you, and even if I can make money doing something, I'm not going to bother because I know what's best for you", I guess it makes sense to try to avoid problems with even that small slice of the market that might be affected (due to the combination of not being able to concentrate, and listening to a particular kind of music), even if that means ignoring the rest of the market for which that reason doesn't exist. But for a sensible company with the bandwidth to design and sell such a device, it's a silly reason to not do so. 2: Cost of stereo... to which I ask whether the second channel really is that much more expensive. In the case of a headphone, I don't see where the extraordinary expense would come from. To be fair, we're not talking about a headphone here (are we?). AFAIK, we're talking about a device like "The Muse" that just works better than that device. That said, yes the extra channel will increase cost (slightly...most of the real cost is likely in R&D and sales and marketing...surely the actual hardware doesn't cost that much, even if the second channel doubled the cost, which I doubt it does). But I can't believe it would increase the cost significantly compared to what the device would sell for, nor should that be an impediment to designing and marketing such a device, since a more reliable, more capable device can also command a higher sales price. 3: Compatibility... well, ok if you are designing entire panels (which I assume RST is). But there are compatibility issues with mono too. If others are producing stereo, you have the same issues. Again, in this particular case we're not talking about compatibility at all (other than the need to be able to select stereo or mono output). Ignoring, for a moment, that the issues related to stereo intercoms and headsets are entirely solveable (proven by the many successful stereo-capable intercoms and headsets), those just don't apply here. It'd be like a car manufacturer saying "we don't provide a full-size spare tire for your full-size sport-utility vehicle, because we can't fit a full-size spare tire in our sub-compact models". I would also point out an advantage to stereo, used properly (which I've actually never seen)... and that is the ability to put the intercom (mostly) in one ear while ATC is (mostly) in the other, or to put Com1 on the left and Com2 on the right (which would be a godsend when trying to get the ATIS or monitoring CTAF while staying with ATC). Sure...those are potentially good examples of ways to use stereo in an intercom/audio panel device to benefit the pilot and the safety of the flight. But I'm not seeing the relevance here (except perhaps as a rebuttal to the general philosophy of "we ain't doing stereo, no way, no how"). Jose r.a.owning trimmed - I don't follow that group Your post, your choice, I guess. But just because YOU don't follow the group doesn't mean the cross-post wasn't appropriate. I'd say in this case, this was a reasonable choice of cross-posting. Pete |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
RST,
Given all these reasons, RST has decided not to produce any stereo equipment. Not sure I can follow. All your points except no. 1 have been solved quite well by most all other companies in the business, and the price delta has become real small. For headsets and audio panels, stereo is the de-facto standard now. And no. 1 is really not your decision to make, is it? It's the decision of the customer. But, if that's the way you want to do business and it works, by all means do it. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Jose,
3: Compatibility... well, ok if you are designing entire panels (which I assume RST is). But there are compatibility issues with mono too. If others are producing stereo, you have the same issues. Other companies have solved this problem to perfection with electronics sensing whether a mono or a stereo plug is plugged in. It's a non-issue. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Have been for 33 years now. Seen a lot of them come and go. We are still
here. Must be doing SOMETHING right every now and again. Jim But, if that's the way you want to do business and it works, by all means do it. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Jose wrote:
I would also point out an advantage to stereo, used properly (which I've actually never seen)... and that is the ability to put the intercom (mostly) in one ear while ATC is (mostly) in the other, or to put Com1 on the left and Com2 on the right (which would be a godsend when trying to get the ATIS or monitoring CTAF while staying with ATC). You are unlikely to see this. Tests run in the late 70s fairly conclusively proved that people cannot listen to two conversations at one time this way; that is, when one conversation was piped into one ear via a headset speaker and another was piped into the other ear, the listener couldn't make sense of either conversation. As I recall, the tests were performed using telephone headsets (IOW, the listener was trying to listen to two telephone conversations) and were not directly related to aircraft. IMO, the current solution of having the intercom mute down if ATC sounds off is much safer, and listening to both COM1 and COM2 at the same time would give you a better chance of understanding things in your second example. George Patterson "Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got no clothes on - and are up to somethin'. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
I would also point out an advantage to stereo, used properly (which I've actually never seen)... and that is the ability to put the intercom (mostly) in one ear while ATC is (mostly) in the other, or to put Com1 on the left and Com2 on the right (which would be a godsend when trying to get the ATIS or monitoring CTAF while staying with ATC).
You are unlikely to see this. Tests run in the late 70s fairly conclusively proved that people cannot listen to two conversations at one time this way; that is, when one conversation was piped into one ear via a headset speaker and another was piped into the other ear, the listener couldn't make sense of either conversation. As I recall, the tests were performed using telephone headsets (IOW, the listener was trying to listen to two telephone conversations) and were not directly related to aircraft. Hmmm... I"ll have to try this. Did the tests compare split listening with merged listening? Or just conclude that listening to two conversations is hard period? Jose -- The price of freedom is... well... freedom. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
I'll say it is. DId you ever try to listen to your wife and your girlfriend
at the same time? {;-) Jim Hmmm... I"ll have to try this. Did the tests compare split listening with merged listening? Or just conclude that listening to two conversations is hard period? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
In a previous article, George Patterson said:
Jose wrote: I would also point out an advantage to stereo, used properly (which I've actually never seen)... and that is the ability to put the intercom (mostly) in one ear while ATC is (mostly) in the other, or to put Com1 on the left and Com2 on the right (which would be a godsend when trying to get the ATIS or monitoring CTAF while staying with ATC). conversation. As I recall, the tests were performed using telephone headsets (IOW, the listener was trying to listen to two telephone conversations) and were not directly related to aircraft. That's not a good test for this situation. The way I do it is to put the ATIS on the overhead speakers. I'm not trying to follow two conversations, I'm trying to get the ATIS while only paying enough attention to the headphones to hear my call sign. When I hear my call sign, it's simple to stop paying attention to the ATIS (or hit the speaker button to turn it off) to hear the call, and then go back to listening to the ATIS. -- Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/ The superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid situations in which he has to demonstrate his superior skill. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|