If you had sound/voice... would you prefer speaker or buds?

[s_mack]

Quick survey. Whether or not you already have your tx speaking to you, and whether or not this is something that interests you... let's pretend you don't already have it and you're considering adding it to your radio, would you prefer to hear the sounds through a speaker internal to the unit, or would you prefer to plug in a pair of headphones (ie. earbuds, etc) and hear it that way?

I realize some want to say "neither" or "both" or "switch-able"... but let's assume you have just the two choices.

Thanks.

[jhsa]

Normally I would say both. but if i could only have one I would say a speaker.
On 2 of my 9x radios i have a speaker and I also installed a female jack connector that switches the speaker OFF and connects the sound to the earphone.. Well, I have never used the earphone until now. I prefer to decrease the volume or go away if I'm bothering someone. Also I find it dangerous to have wires hanging from my neck when I'm near rotating props.
With a wireless audio system maybe i could change my mind, even if I would lose the ability of annoying the other club members
So, for me SPEAKER all the way, and the louder, the better..
I would also love to play music from my radio in between flights. Wouldn't need to take an extra mp3 player.
I think openTX can do it, but ersky9x has other features that I also like and want to use. But if it had the ability of playing music, it would be perfect hint, hint...

João

EDIT: Also if you have a speaker with an amplifier inside the radio, later is easier to add a plug for an earphone

[Wimh]

Speaker...

[s_mack]

Glad I asked

I figured it was just obvious it should be headphones. That made WAY more sense to me. But then, I don't actually use it so it was just my imagination of what I think I'd want if I was using it. Mike told me most people would want a speaker.

Looks like Mike was right (what else is new?)

[jhsa]

If you have a speaker is easier to connect some headphones than the other way round.

João

[s_mack]

Well, either can be easy depending on how the circuit is built. But if the resounding opinion was that headphones were better, the circuit can be built a little cheaper

[jhsa]

Definitely speaker, whatever you're building

João

[Bill]

You know you can get a jack plug that cuts off the speaker and transfers to headphones so why not just go with speaker and jack plug at no real extra expense.

[s_mack]

Because of the real extra expense

As João guessed, I am not asking for opinions on how to mod my own radio as a diy project. Providing a solder-free, simple to install (cause that's what I do) headphone jack is possible, but not insignificant. If nobody wants it, then I'm not going to force the expense on the majority for the sake of the minority (in this case zero %)

[Kilrah]

Note that you got 0% because of the way you asked the question, you asked to have one XOR the other. Pretty sure if you included "both" that would have the majority, even with a price increase.

[rdeanchurch]

Note that you got 0% because of the way you asked the question, you asked to have one XOR the other. Pretty sure if you included "both" that would have the majority, even with a price increase.

+1
Yes, I would have voted both.

[s_mack]

Well of course you can get whatever answer you want by manipulating the question

No, I asked the question I wanted to know the answer to. I just wish more people responded because 11 isn't exactly a statistically comfortable sample size (but 0% still has weight for inference). I didn't want to know how many would say "both" precisely due to your point - most people would say "both". And there's also skewing to consider with who answers a poll like this.

Bottom line (and the reason I asked the question): Speaker is easy. Headphones aren't. I *thought* the overwhelming majority would prefer headphones, as I imagine I would. To me headphones were just obvious for this type of thing. Design was stalling on the headphones thing. So I'm glad to learn people don't really care. Whether or not they'd appreciate both is a secondary consideration. I needed to know if speaker-only was feasible, more than I wanted to know if headphones was desired.

I hope that makes sense.

And, by all means, if anyone has some stroke of genius with how to provide for headphones, let me know! I don't mean electrically... that's easy. I mean physically. Why did thousands buy my programmer board? Was it because my electronics were vastly superior to the competition? (Kilrah, the question is rhetorial. Insults not required ). It is because it makes the physical requirements dead easy. Those that can (and will) do the soldering, cutting, trimming, sanding, painting, etc etc etc to hack something together aren't interested in what I have. Those that are interested, I believe, are those that want a bolt-on solution - or as close to that as possible. So far, I can't figure out a bolt-on method for providing a headphone jack.

I do believe that people would be willing to drill a specified size hole in their case, but then I came to two problems: 1) there are no reasonably priced panel-mount jacks with a long enough threaded post for the 3mm thick shell that I could find; 2) there's really no obvious place on the case that is FLAT and also has enough free internal space such that the (relatively large) jack isn't interfering with things like gimbals.

I considered utilizing the existing trainer port because I still can't for the life of me understand why anyone actually uses that thing but I understand, much like my heaphones opinion, the way I r/c isn't the way most people r/c. So leaving that intact seemed like a good idea.

One other possibility for placement was directly beside the trainer port, but then that leaves one with the sketchy situation of *possibly* not knowing which is which. I'm not sure what happens when you make a direct connection between a powered port and your ears.

[jhsa]

Those that can (and will) do the soldering, cutting, trimming, sanding, painting, etc etc etc to hack something together aren't interested in what I have. Those that are interested, I believe, are those that want a bolt-on solution - or as close to that as possible. So far, I can't figure out a bolt-on method for providing a headphone jack.

Steven, please allow me to disagree a little here. Some people might have some soldering skills but not enough to solder to CPU pins. I'm fortunate as I'm able to replace chips and all that.
But anyway, take the example of your telemetrEZ board, if I'm not mistaken it provides a little bit more than just telemetry, right? For example if I'm not mistaken, the rotary encoder can be connected to it instead of the processor pins, right?
Also it is only solderless if used with the latest version of the smartieparts board? Otherwise some small soldering is needed? Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sure that some people bought your board and didn't mind doing that small soldering job
Some people are probably able to do the soldering but they just can't be bothered to do it and prefer a solderless solution
In our hobby we need to know how to do some basic soldering, like battery plugs for example..

I considered utilizing the existing trainer port because I still can't for the life of me understand why anyone actually uses that thing but I understand, much like my heaphones opinion, the way I r/c isn't the way most people r/c. So leaving that intact seemed like a good idea.

Some people like to teach others to fly, or even fly simulators when the weather is bad outside. So, whatever you're doing please don't touch the trainer port

One other possibility for placement was directly beside the trainer port, but then that leaves one with the sketchy situation of *possibly* not knowing which is which. I'm not sure what happens when you make a direct connection between a powered port and your ears.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. People should know which hole they drilled. We are all able to mark it with a pen or even with a little sticker.
I like this idea..

João

[MikeB]

The main question here is not if (some) people are happy to drill holes etc. but what is the cost to make something? Yes, you can make something that has both speaker and headphone. But that then means everyone is buying both, and the total cost is higher. The same argument applies to other possible things that might be added. Everyone then has to buy these additions, yet it is quite likely only a small percentage of people actually want them.
Hence the question, if only one is available, which one is preferered?

One problem you have on these forums is you don't hear from many users. There are many who have, for example, purchased the Smartieparts board, fitted it, and are happily using it. They don't have any problems, they are happy with whatever firmware they have flashed and they just enjoy their flying (or driving, or boating etc.). On here, we generally only see the small percentage who either have problems, or wish to do more complicated modifications.

Mike.

[s_mack]

Steven, please allow me to disagree a little here.

Always!

take the example of your telemetrEZ board [...] it is only solderless if used with the latest version of the smartieparts board? [...] I'm sure that some people bought your board and didn't mind doing that small soldering job

Your'e correct on all points, but consider this: I sold roughly 100 before Rev 2.4... and 2800 since (ie. after it was solderless).

Some people are probably able to do the soldering but they just can't be bothered to do it and prefer a solderless solution
In our hobby we need to know how to do some basic soldering, like battery plugs for example..

I fully agree. But what would probably shock you (it did me) is just how many will pay quite a bit more to make it so they don't have to. A ton of people find soldering to be very challenging. HobbyKing figured that out when they went to a (more or less) unified standard with their batteries and chargers. Saving people from having to put on battery plugs probably increased sales of their batteries enormously.

Take this as a compliment João... you aren't my target audience

Some people like to teach others to fly, or even fly simulators when the weather is bad outside. So, whatever you're doing please don't touch the trainer port

Yeah, yeah... I know. It just would have been so pretty

People should know which hole they drilled. We are all able to mark it with a pen or even with a little sticker. I like this idea.

I liked it too, but I really don't think there's enough room. FlySky designed the case as they did so that a standard PCB mounted jack would fit perfectly. That means there is EXACTLY enough space for one of these jacks to fit, directly connected to their board. All the in-line jacks I've found are significantly longer than board mounted ones. No board mounted jacks are threaded for panel mounting. Plus there's still the issue that ALL panel mounts that I've found so far are too short to allow for the ~3mm plastic and still have enough thread to get the nut on.

The next best spot I figured was at the top where the nameplate is,primarily because the plastic is thinner there (and it is relatively flat), but then that's where the speaker goes so that doesn't work.


Believe me, I put more than a little thought into this issue because, as I said, I was self-convinced that people would prefer using headphones. It was only after hitting this wall (and Mike telling me not to bother) that I decided to ask. I am more than happy to see that he was right, I was wrong, the problem isn't really a problem and I can move on

[jhsa]

Steven thanks for the compliment
I don't know exactly what you're doing but you might be targeting me as well this time, depending on what you're doing. There aren't many things that weren't already done for the 9x radio. There is already a commercial voice module for it, so I guess you aren't just building another one. If whatever you are working on can't be made DIY and it is an improvement for the 9x radio, I can assure you that you might also be targeting me this time. Actually if that is the case, I would be very happy to help testing whatever you are cooking
I have a 9x on my bench that I was going to start working on but I got the feeling that I'd better wait for a while and see what you will come up with I'm sure that whatever it is it will be very good..
João

[s_mack]

There is already a commercial voice module for it

Is there? I couldn't find one actually available.

For a long time I was thinking about bringing voice on board my line to make it easier for people to integrate, but I never did because I didn't want to step on toes. Then it didn't seem like anyone was offering it anymore.

Anyway, that wasn't the primary driver behind this project. Its just one more feature.

Really, I *was* just working on a board that combines my SP and TZ into one because I figured out a way to offer both for only slightly more than the SP alone and it came at a time that I was selling out of TZ's anyway. Nothing very interesting at all to existing users. But then someone mentioned something, this led to that, yada yada yada...

Too early to say anything really. Just want to note that this one isn't my project alone, its a collaborative piece. If it fails anyway. If it works great, then it was all me

[jhsa]

If and when you have something let us know. I'm going to put that radio's mod on hold and wait.
I don't really need more radios but I have been following er9x since nearly the beginning and all the development that has been done for the 9x radio. For me is like a hobby inside another hobby. My radios have everything that was done until today for the 9x. If you or anyone else come up with something that could make this radio even better, I would like to be part of it.. So, if that is the case, please put my name down for one of whatever you're doing. As long as the price is right and I don't have to sell my house or car to be able to buy it of course Ahh, and with a speaker please

João

[s_mack]

So I got another question for you guys... figured I'd just post here rather than start a new thread when I already have your attention


When it comes to audio, is power efficiency important to you? Those of you that already have voice, did you notice a drop in battery life when you did the mod? Most audio amps are a certain class that I believe all the current voice/sound mods for the 9x (or Taranis, etc) use. This class probably makes up nearly all audio devices in most anything. But they are only roughly 40% efficient in terms of converting electrical inputs to speaker boom-boom (yeah, that's a technical term). Another class is available that are far more efficient (>90%) and are used in very-power-sensitive devices like hearing aids and higher-end phones. The cost difference isn't enormous, but it is there. Let's pretend you were looking at buying an off-the-shelf audio mod right now... would you care if one said it was more efficient but added, say, $3-$4 to the price?

This is definitely an area where I can cut costs and probably nobody would ever know, but I'm a fan of efficiency. I just don't know that it really matters in a device like an r/c radio that has a relatively enormous battery that's easily charged/swapped.

Is it worth a few extra dollars for something most people would never appreciate it even being there?

Thoughts?

[jhsa]

For me one or the other as long as it has good volume. I (and possibly everyone else) have been using the LM386 and we have no problems with it. On 2 voice boards is powered by battery voltage and on my arduvoice board it is powered at 5V from a 7805 regulator. Both work ok. Not much difference in sound pressure (boom-boom ) so I guess it is more efficient at lower voltage? A digital amp (class D) is more efficient as you say and can be powered by a much lower voltage as far as I know for the same output power? I never played with one yet.
As you say we can always recharge the radio. Of course if you keep installing in it stuff that takes power, the battery charge will last a bit less. I don't think that is a problem for most of us.
Apart from that there is something that I think need some attention.
RF interference. All radios with voice capability suffer from that. Some more and some less. I think the 9xr pro and 9x with skyboard are the best concerning this problem. Taranis was particularly bad at some point. I hope they fixed the problem.
So I think this would worth $3 or $4 extra, if it could be improved.

João

[andrewju]

Steven,

I'm talking for myself, but I guess this is applicable to most users. In many cases, the 9x has a battery large enough to keep the radio working for a long time - either with sound or without. I see no real need to really care of saving the battery. Also, the radio is not an FM receiver - it doesn't need to play music all the time (not yet, at least). So I suspect the battery saving in this use case will not be noticeable at all.

What I find important is that the sound should have enough loudness, preferably with minimal noise and distortions. I mean, the loudness should be adjustable in a wide range - from very quiet (when I'm doing some settings or using a simulator at home at night) to quite loud when I'm at a flying field on a windy day with multiple engines starting / stopping nearby, etc. Also, I don't know if you plan to offer your solution as a complete bundle with a speaker. If you will let your customers buy speakers elsewhere (which will help you to keep shipping cost down) - then the amplifier will need to have some extra power for low-sensitivity speakers, too. I think THIS is much more important than saving a few mA.

P.S. Oh, João was first! We're basically saying the same thing.

[s_mack]

Thanks. Regarding rf interface... I think that mostly comes down to board layout... keeping analog and digital out of each other's way. I found some interseting all-digital amps but I have no idea at all if they can be compatible from a firmware perspective. But then no analog on the input side would male layout so much easier/safer.

Regarding loudness. What is the lm386 rated for? 700mW or something like that? I've ruled out the lm386 because it is rated only to 0°C and I do my best to design all my products for use down to at least -20°C. The chips I am considering, while much more expensive than the lm386, are all rated in the 1.2W to 1.7W range. So that plus a 1 to 1.5W speaker should probably suffice, no?

I was planning on supplying the speaker.

[andrewju]

I think we do not even use the entire 700mW an LM386 could give. At least, the datasheet suggests a couple extra components that are meant to increase amplification, and these components are not in the original sound module design posted in the Wiki.

What I found is that when I use a high-sensitivity speaker, sometimes the minimum sound level is still too high for my environment (at home, late in the evening). And a lower-sensitivity speaker is too low in a noisy environment. That's just my experience.

So as long as you provide enough volume range, it should be Ok.


Just out of curiosity, can you give an example of an all-digital amp you have considered? I tried to use a TDA7052 instead of LM386 in the sound module, but I got poor results with it (excessive noise, lower sound quality, lots of heat and overall not any louder than an lm386).

[jhsa]

What about two DACs ?

1W should be more than enough.. If it was me designing it I would allow more inputs to the amp. On the 9xr pro for example if voice is playing beeps from the trims cannot be played.

João

[s_mack]

There are ICs that allow for channel mixing too, but now you're into a lot of wasted $ (and board space) because those chips are for full blown audio devices and have things like 5.1 outputs that we couldn't use even if we wanted to. We don't want to get carried away.

Ehem... I just now realize that I didn't post what I meant to post earlier! This project is a Mike & Steve joint production All the firmware, of course, and most of the hardware credit is his. Sorry Mike, I meant to announce that after I emailed you asking if you didn't mind your name out there. Guess I forgot.

With that cat out of the bag, Mike can probably clarify on why volume range is difficult. From a message he sent to me I think I understand that where we suffer is DAC bit-depth. By controlling volume with the DAC, we lose resolution so sound quality suffers as volume is lowered. I probably funked that statement up, so anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. He's working on it, in any case.

Believe it or not, I'm now on day 3 - FULL days!! - just researching audio amps. Ideally, I want to find one that is:

• Class D (why not?)
• at or below a 3mm x 5mm package size
• has a temp range of -20 to +40 or wider
• has built in i2c volume control (DC volume control is fine too but with i2c we don't need to tie up a specific pin)
• has a headphone bypass
• has a volume cost of less than $2 (half that would be nice)
• and is actually available.

It doesn't exist, unfortunately, so sacrifices have to be made. The first to go is the headphones, thanks to this "survey" and the fact that headphone input is rare. With that removed... it still doesn't exist. So I loosen my search with larger packages, more cost... throw out the class wish... I still haven't found the right one. But I will. I will.

[jhsa]

Steve you don't need a dedicated IC for mixing channels to a single input. A couple resistors and caps should do the job.

Or if you want to control several inputs separately maybe there is an I2C chip that could do it? Without all the 5.1 raindance?

João

[MikeB]

On the er9x board we do the volume by simply scaling the the DAC values down, and only have 8 volume settings.
This works as we (sort of) have a 16-bit DAC (PWM), so scaling down still leaves us with enough resolution to sound OK.
On the STM, we only have a 12-bit DAC (real), so scaling down too far results in loss of resolution, and the quality will suffer.
As Steve says, I'm working on it and have several ideas!

Mike.

[s_mack]

Or if you want to control several inputs separately maybe there is an I2C chip that could do it? Without all the 5.1 raindance?

I thought that's what you meant... so that the beeps could be set louder than the voice.

[Kilrah]

If it was me designing it I would allow more inputs to the amp. On the 9xr pro for example if voice is playing beeps from the trims cannot be played.

That can be solved by software mixing like in opentx, no need for additional hardware.

Envoyé de mon SM-G920F en utilisant Tapatalk

[jhsa]

I thought openTx also scaled the DAC values down at cost of resolution? Or does it use a different solution?

João