A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
 

On Aug 16, 4:29 am, "Brenda Ann" wrote:
"John Navas" wrote in message

...





On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey wrote
in :

On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article ,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium wrote:

Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
also apply:

The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.

Actually more like 10 KHz.

If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.

Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ

POTS phone lines are very limited. IIRC from my work with those systems,
about 300-3600 Hz. Strictly human voice range, not meant for hi-fi. Special
lines are still available for hi-fi use as audio STL's

? "STL's" ?

A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cellphone industry.
 

RHF wrote:
On Aug 16, 4:29 am, "Brenda Ann" wrote:
"John Navas" wrote in message

...





On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey wrote
in :
On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article ,
"John Navas" wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, wrote in
:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium wrote:
Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
also apply:
The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.
Actually more like 10 KHz.
If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.
Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ
POTS phone lines are very limited. IIRC from my work with those systems,
about 300-3600 Hz. Strictly human voice range, not meant for hi-fi. Special
lines are still available for hi-fi use as audio STL's

? "STL's" ?



Studio to Transmitter Link.

A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cellphone industry.
 

Brenda Ann wrote:
"John Navas" wrote in message
...
POTS phone lines are very limited. IIRC from my work with those systems,
about 300-3600 Hz. Strictly human voice range, not meant for hi-fi.
Special
lines are still available for hi-fi use as audio STL's.
POTS lines are encoded at 64 Kbps, which is why V.90 modems work, and
which is sufficient for decent audio, albeit not "hi-fi".


POTS lines are not encoded at all. Hence "Plain Old Telephone Service" which
can be used with any telephone (ain't no decoders in a WE 500 deskset) that
uses a DC line.






In the US, the telephone network has been digital since 1962. At the
time of the conversion, there was a decision made to keep the instrument
and the interface familiar to the user, so there is no conversion in the
deskset, and the 'last mile' from the CO is still analogue with battery
voltage as it always has been. But behind that interface, the network is
digital.

Now, that 'last mile' analogue circuit can be VERY poor. In my area,
a v.92 modem will only pass 14.4. While only a mile up the road, I was
getting 53k+ on the same v.92 modem.

When the network was converted from analogue to digital, there were
complaints that voices no longer sounded right and that some people
didn't sound like themselves. The complaints reached suce a pitch that
AT&T launched a PR campaign in which TV spots attempted to explain the
change in the audio at the instrument. As was the style of the times,
they didn't really explain anything, certainly nothing as technical as
digital audio, but instead, they described, through narrative and
animation, how a person speaking into a telephone would connect to the
central hub, where a voice that was similar to the speaker's voice was
selected, and sent on to the far end. That's why someone didn't sound
like themeselves.

No one bought it, of course, what with AT&T's reputation, by that
point...but it was a hilarious exercise in TelCo spin.

And paved the way for the explanation of 'Tru-Voice' 30 years later.

Yes, POTS lines are encoded. At the CO. The only thing POTS about a
POTS line is what sits on your desk, and a length of copper to the network.

A more rational approach -- how I would like to change thecell phone industry.
 

On 8/26/07 7:10 PM, in article ,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:29:19 -0700, Don Bowey wrote
in :

On 8/16/07 7:29 AM, in article
, "D Peter Maus"
wrote:

Guaranteed performance, you're right, is only 300 to 3600Hz,

I can't think of even one US Telco that would (or could) guarantee that for
a POTS line.

Check the spec.

Sure. Whose spec?

Ever notice the D4 bank filter cutoff frequencies? How about loaded cable
rolloff?

A more rational approach -- how I would like to change thecell phone industry.
 

On 8/26/07 7:15 PM, in article ,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 06:52:55 -0700, Don Bowey wrote
in :

On 8/15/07 11:07 PM, in article ,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey wrote
in :

On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article ,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium wrote:

Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
also apply:

The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.

Actually more like 10 KHz.

If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.

Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.

Audio WHAT? Read what more carefully? Are you attempting to say the audio
bandwidth of a message network channel is greater than about 3 kHz?

No. Suggest you read more carefully.

Suggest you kiss my ass.

A more rational approach -- how I would like to change thecell phone industry.
 

On 8/26/07 7:31 PM, in article ,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:29:12 +0900, "Brenda Ann"
wrote in :

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey wrote
in :

On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article ,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium wrote:

Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
also apply:

The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.

Actually more like 10 KHz.

If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.

Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.

POTS phone lines are very limited. IIRC from my work with those systems,
about 300-3600 Hz. Strictly human voice range, not meant for hi-fi. Special
lines are still available for hi-fi use as audio STL's.

POTS lines are encoded at 64 Kbps, which is why V.90 modems work, and
which is sufficient for decent audio, albeit not "hi-fi".

Having said that, you have said nothing useful.

A more rational approach -- how I would like to change thecell phone industry.
 

On 8/26/07 8:44 PM, in article
, "Brenda Ann"
wrote:


"John Navas" wrote in message
...
POTS phone lines are very limited. IIRC from my work with those systems,
about 300-3600 Hz. Strictly human voice range, not meant for hi-fi.
Special
lines are still available for hi-fi use as audio STL's.

POTS lines are encoded at 64 Kbps, which is why V.90 modems work, and
which is sufficient for decent audio, albeit not "hi-fi".


POTS lines are not encoded at all. Hence "Plain Old Telephone Service" which
can be used with any telephone (ain't no decoders in a WE 500 deskset) that
uses a DC line.


POTS lines that are on pair gain systems are, indeed, coded in the same
manner as is the message network. It has nothing to do with the phone, and
is transparent to the user. They may, however, not be coded to a full 64
kbit/s.

A more rational approach -- how I would like to change thecell phone industry.
 

On 8/26/07 9:21 PM, in article
, "D Peter Maus"
wrote:

Brenda Ann wrote:
"John Navas" wrote in message
...
POTS phone lines are very limited. IIRC from my work with those systems,
about 300-3600 Hz. Strictly human voice range, not meant for hi-fi.
Special
lines are still available for hi-fi use as audio STL's.
POTS lines are encoded at 64 Kbps, which is why V.90 modems work, and
which is sufficient for decent audio, albeit not "hi-fi".


POTS lines are not encoded at all. Hence "Plain Old Telephone Service" which
can be used with any telephone (ain't no decoders in a WE 500 deskset) that
uses a DC line.






In the US, the telephone network has been digital since 1962. At the
time of the conversion, there was a decision made to keep the instrument
and the interface familiar to the user, so there is no conversion in the
deskset, and the 'last mile' from the CO is still analogue with battery
voltage as it always has been. But behind that interface, the network is
digital.

Now, that 'last mile' analogue circuit can be VERY poor. In my area,
a v.92 modem will only pass 14.4. While only a mile up the road, I was
getting 53k+ on the same v.92 modem.

When the network was converted from analogue to digital, there were
complaints that voices no longer sounded right and that some people
didn't sound like themselves. The complaints reached suce a pitch that
AT&T launched a PR campaign in which TV spots attempted to explain the
change in the audio at the instrument. As was the style of the times,
they didn't really explain anything, certainly nothing as technical as
digital audio, but instead, they described, through narrative and
animation, how a person speaking into a telephone would connect to the
central hub, where a voice that was similar to the speaker's voice was
selected, and sent on to the far end. That's why someone didn't sound
like themeselves.

No one bought it, of course, what with AT&T's reputation, by that
point...but it was a hilarious exercise in TelCo spin.

And paved the way for the explanation of 'Tru-Voice' 30 years later.

Yes, POTS lines are encoded. At the CO. The only thing POTS about a
POTS line is what sits on your desk, and a length of copper to the network.


You ignored pair-gain multiplexing in the Exchange Plant, which uses the
same codecs as are used in the message network.

A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cellphone industry.
 

Don Bowey wrote:
On 8/26/07 9:21 PM, in article
, "D Peter Maus"
wrote:

Brenda Ann wrote:
"John Navas" wrote in message
...
POTS phone lines are very limited. IIRC from my work with those systems,
about 300-3600 Hz. Strictly human voice range, not meant for hi-fi.
Special
lines are still available for hi-fi use as audio STL's.
POTS lines are encoded at 64 Kbps, which is why V.90 modems work, and
which is sufficient for decent audio, albeit not "hi-fi".

POTS lines are not encoded at all. Hence "Plain Old Telephone Service" which
can be used with any telephone (ain't no decoders in a WE 500 deskset) that
uses a DC line.





In the US, the telephone network has been digital since 1962. At the
time of the conversion, there was a decision made to keep the instrument
and the interface familiar to the user, so there is no conversion in the
deskset, and the 'last mile' from the CO is still analogue with battery
voltage as it always has been. But behind that interface, the network is
digital.

Now, that 'last mile' analogue circuit can be VERY poor. In my area,
a v.92 modem will only pass 14.4. While only a mile up the road, I was
getting 53k+ on the same v.92 modem.

When the network was converted from analogue to digital, there were
complaints that voices no longer sounded right and that some people
didn't sound like themselves. The complaints reached suce a pitch that
AT&T launched a PR campaign in which TV spots attempted to explain the
change in the audio at the instrument. As was the style of the times,
they didn't really explain anything, certainly nothing as technical as
digital audio, but instead, they described, through narrative and
animation, how a person speaking into a telephone would connect to the
central hub, where a voice that was similar to the speaker's voice was
selected, and sent on to the far end. That's why someone didn't sound
like themeselves.

No one bought it, of course, what with AT&T's reputation, by that
point...but it was a hilarious exercise in TelCo spin.

And paved the way for the explanation of 'Tru-Voice' 30 years later.

Yes, POTS lines are encoded. At the CO. The only thing POTS about a
POTS line is what sits on your desk, and a length of copper to the network.


You ignored pair-gain multiplexing in the Exchange Plant, which uses the
same codecs as are used in the message network.


Um.....no, actually, I didn't.

A more rational approach -- how I would like to change thecell phone industry.
 

On 8/27/07 8:18 AM, in article
, "D Peter Maus"
wrote:

At the CO.

How about the one at the pair-gain terminal that you forgot?

A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
 

In article ,
"Brenda Ann" wrote:

"John Navas" wrote in message
...

Snip

John Navas is a notorious Troll in many news groups. Please do not
respond to him in re.radio.shortwave.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
 

In article ,
Don Bowey wrote:

On 8/26/07 7:15 PM, in article ,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 06:52:55 -0700, Don Bowey wrote
in :

On 8/15/07 11:07 PM, in article
,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey wrote
in :

On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article
,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium wrote:

Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less
and
a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
also apply:

The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.

Actually more like 10 KHz.

If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network
channel/circuit,
including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.

Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.

Audio WHAT? Read what more carefully? Are you attempting to say the audio
bandwidth of a message network channel is greater than about 3 kHz?

No. Suggest you read more carefully.

Suggest you kiss my ass.

I suggest you pay attention to the news groups to which you cross post.

Plonk

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

A more rational approach -- how I would like to change thecell phone industry.
 

On 9/1/07 10:48 AM, in article
,
"Telamon" wrote:

In article ,
Don Bowey wrote:

On 8/26/07 7:15 PM, in article ,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 06:52:55 -0700, Don Bowey wrote
in :

On 8/15/07 11:07 PM, in article
,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey wrote
in :

On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article
,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium wrote:

Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less
and
a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
also apply:

The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.

Actually more like 10 KHz.

If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network
channel/circuit,
including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.

Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.

Audio WHAT? Read what more carefully? Are you attempting to say the audio
bandwidth of a message network channel is greater than about 3 kHz?

No. Suggest you read more carefully.

Suggest you kiss my ass.

I suggest you pay attention to the news groups to which you cross post.

Plonk

Idiot. The reply goes to whatever distribution was set on the posted
message. Plonk yourself, Troll.

A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
 

On Sep 1, 10:45 am, Telamon
wrote:
In article ,
"Brenda Ann" wrote:

"John Navas" wrote in message
.. .

Snip


- John Navas is a notorious Troll in many news groups.
- Please do not respond to him in re.radio.shortwave.
-
- --
- Telamon
- Ventura, California

Telamon - Was 'that' an Oops ? ;-}
{Please do not respond to him in re.radio.shortwave.}

DOH ! - Oops It Was For Me Too ! :o) ~ RHF

A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
 

On Sep 1, 10:48 am, Telamon
wrote:
In article ,
Don Bowey wrote:





On 8/26/07 7:15 PM, in article ,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 06:52:55 -0700, Don Bowey wrote
in :

On 8/15/07 11:07 PM, in article
,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey wrote
in :

On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article
,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium wrote:

Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less
and
a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
also apply:

The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.

Actually more like 10 KHz.

If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network
channel/circuit,
including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.

Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.

Audio WHAT? Read what more carefully? Are you attempting to say the audio
bandwidth of a message network channel is greater than about 3 kHz?

No. Suggest you read more carefully.

Suggest you kiss my ass.


- I suggest you pay attention to the news groups to which you cross
post.
-
- Plonk
-
- --
- Telamon
- Ventura, California


Telamon - Was 'that' an Oops ? ;-}

{ I suggest you pay attention to the
news groups to which you cross post.}

sci.electronics.basics, rec.radio.shortwave,
rec.radio.amateur.antenna, alt.cellular.cingular,
alt.internet.wireless

DOH ! - Oops It Was For Me Too ! :o) ~ RHF