Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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" ? |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change thecell phone industry.
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change thecell phone industry.
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry. | Antenna | |||
How I would like to change the cell phone industry [was AM electromagnetic waves: 20 KHz modulation frequency on an astronomically-low carrier frequency] | Antenna | |||
How I would like to change the cell phone industry [was AM electromagnetic waves: 20 KHz modulation frequency on an astronomically-low carrier frequency] | Shortwave | |||
Mobile Phone/Cell Phone Health Issue (Sorry, OT) | Homebrew |