(Radium) wrote in message . com...
If lossy compression is okay for music it would be ideal for speech.
In all cases digital is of better quality, can carry on much longer
distances, and is much more protective of the user's privacy than
analog.

You're confusing two very different subjects, taking partial answers
to both, mising them, together in a thick, soupy broth and trying to
extract some sort of coherent answer to a question that you haven't
asked very well.

Pretty much ANY answer is just as bad as any other to such a mess.

Hi,

In message , Radium
writes
What the @%#$ is this website talking about?

http://telecom.hellodirect.com/docs/...l.1.051501.asp

They say:

"analog can deliver better sound quality than digital"

The rest of the thread has done this to death by know, but am I the only
one that misses the single best feature of analogue phone systems - the
ability for both parties to talk *at the same time* and be heard
continuously. All the digital systems I've used seem to be like
walkie-talkies; while one party speaks, the other party cannot be heard.
It kills the nuance of a telephone conversation, because the provider is
only giving me a half duplex connection.

As to sound quality, I've had 10 or more cordless or mobile phones over
the years, and they all had way bigger problems than the sound quality.
Even today, getting a reliable GSM connection is a problem, and I'm only
twenty miles from London, wedged between two major motorway routes - one
of the "100% coverage" areas, they tell me, and our Panasonic DECT phone
seems to enjoy listening to the neighbours' baby alarms.

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

Hi,

In message , Radium
writes
What the @%#$ is this website talking about?

http://telecom.hellodirect.com/docs/...l.1.051501.asp

They say:

"analog can deliver better sound quality than digital"

The rest of the thread has done this to death by know, but am I the only
one that misses the single best feature of analogue phone systems - the
ability for both parties to talk *at the same time* and be heard
continuously. All the digital systems I've used seem to be like
walkie-talkies; while one party speaks, the other party cannot be heard.
It kills the nuance of a telephone conversation, because the provider is
only giving me a half duplex connection.

As to sound quality, I've had 10 or more cordless or mobile phones over
the years, and they all had way bigger problems than the sound quality.
Even today, getting a reliable GSM connection is a problem, and I'm only
twenty miles from London, wedged between two major motorway routes - one
of the "100% coverage" areas, they tell me, and our Panasonic DECT phone
seems to enjoy listening to the neighbours' baby alarms.

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

Randy Yates wrote:

I should have also noted the following in my adjacent post.

[omitted]

Thanks, interesting.

% Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********

Randy Yates wrote:

I should have also noted the following in my adjacent post.

[omitted]

Thanks, interesting.

% Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********

Glenn Booth wrote:
[...]
Even today, getting a reliable GSM connection is a problem,

Glenn,

Try a relatively new Sony Ericsson T230. They have the best receiver
sensitivity we've had in years (SEMC is my day job). And they're dirt
cheap.
--
% Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side
%%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall."
%%%% % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

Glenn Booth wrote:
[...]
Even today, getting a reliable GSM connection is a problem,

Glenn,

Try a relatively new Sony Ericsson T230. They have the best receiver
sensitivity we've had in years (SEMC is my day job). And they're dirt
cheap.
--
% Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side
%%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall."
%%%% % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On 7 Nov 2003 19:37:46 -0800, (Radium) wrote:

snip
"Analog's sound quality is still superior-as some users with
dual-transmission phones will manually switch to analog for better
sound when they're not concerned with a crowded coverage area"

"An analog phone will give you the richest sound quality and usually
enough range."

For entertainment audio, a bit of even-order distortion, as provided
by valve circuits, and modern circuitry emulating such, can sound
nice. As audio reproduction, digital or otherwise, is a very
imperfect science, choosing "what sounds good" is sensible, as you
can't have "what sounds accurate".

For cordless 'phones, bull**** :-)

News drift? Naaaa.....

Way back when, I did an audio preamp that had a two path setup,
one through "normal" 0.005% distortion electronics, the other through
a BBD (delay line). That path had higher noise and ~0.05% (maybe 0.1%?
I forget) distortion, almost entirely 2nd harmonic.

A number of audio press reviews were very complimentary about the
sound quality, and preferred the sound from the higher distortion and
noise floor path. As the noise floor was "good enough" in both cases
(well below source material), I could only put it down to the even
order distortion. I was quite surprised that such a low level could
influence the result, but this was from several reviewers.

Regards
Ian

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On 7 Nov 2003 19:37:46 -0800, (Radium) wrote:

snip
"Analog's sound quality is still superior-as some users with
dual-transmission phones will manually switch to analog for better
sound when they're not concerned with a crowded coverage area"

"An analog phone will give you the richest sound quality and usually
enough range."

For entertainment audio, a bit of even-order distortion, as provided
by valve circuits, and modern circuitry emulating such, can sound
nice. As audio reproduction, digital or otherwise, is a very
imperfect science, choosing "what sounds good" is sensible, as you
can't have "what sounds accurate".

For cordless 'phones, bull**** :-)

News drift? Naaaa.....

Way back when, I did an audio preamp that had a two path setup,
one through "normal" 0.005% distortion electronics, the other through
a BBD (delay line). That path had higher noise and ~0.05% (maybe 0.1%?
I forget) distortion, almost entirely 2nd harmonic.

A number of audio press reviews were very complimentary about the
sound quality, and preferred the sound from the higher distortion and
noise floor path. As the noise floor was "good enough" in both cases
(well below source material), I could only put it down to the even
order distortion. I was quite surprised that such a low level could
influence the result, but this was from several reviewers.

Regards
Ian

Glenn Booth wrote in message ...
The rest of the thread has done this to death by know, but am I the only
one that misses the single best feature of analogue phone systems - the
ability for both parties to talk *at the same time* and be heard
continuously.

Digital is also capable of such.

All the digital systems I've used seem to be like
walkie-talkies; while one party speaks, the other party cannot be heard.
It kills the nuance of a telephone conversation, because the provider is
only giving me a half duplex connection.

The provider is being stingy. Nothing to do with digital or analog.
There are digital phone softwares that make use of Full-duplex
soundcards. Net2Phone is one. All you need is a full-duplex audio
card.


As to sound quality, I've had 10 or more cordless or mobile phones over
the years, and they all had way bigger problems than the sound quality.
Even today, getting a reliable GSM connection is a problem, and I'm only
twenty miles from London, wedged between two major motorway routes - one
of the "100% coverage" areas, they tell me, and our Panasonic DECT phone
seems to enjoy listening to the neighbours' baby alarms.

GSM is a form of compression. Compression and decompression require
processing power. Why can't they just use 8 Khz, 8-bit, mono PCM?

Glenn Booth wrote in message ...
The rest of the thread has done this to death by know, but am I the only
one that misses the single best feature of analogue phone systems - the
ability for both parties to talk *at the same time* and be heard
continuously.

Digital is also capable of such.

All the digital systems I've used seem to be like
walkie-talkies; while one party speaks, the other party cannot be heard.
It kills the nuance of a telephone conversation, because the provider is
only giving me a half duplex connection.

The provider is being stingy. Nothing to do with digital or analog.
There are digital phone softwares that make use of Full-duplex
soundcards. Net2Phone is one. All you need is a full-duplex audio
card.


As to sound quality, I've had 10 or more cordless or mobile phones over
the years, and they all had way bigger problems than the sound quality.
Even today, getting a reliable GSM connection is a problem, and I'm only
twenty miles from London, wedged between two major motorway routes - one
of the "100% coverage" areas, they tell me, and our Panasonic DECT phone
seems to enjoy listening to the neighbours' baby alarms.

GSM is a form of compression. Compression and decompression require
processing power. Why can't they just use 8 Khz, 8-bit, mono PCM?

Hi,

In message , Radium
writes
Glenn Booth wrote in message
...
The rest of the thread has done this to death by know, but am I the only
one that misses the single best feature of analogue phone systems - the
ability for both parties to talk *at the same time* and be heard
continuously.

Digital is also capable of such.

Obviously digital systems are capable of it, but the ones I have used
(DECT, GSM) don't do it. There is a very obvious 'coming and going' of
the other parties' voice while I am speaking.


All the digital systems I've used seem to be like
walkie-talkies; while one party speaks, the other party cannot be heard.
It kills the nuance of a telephone conversation, because the provider is
only giving me a half duplex connection.

The provider is being stingy. Nothing to do with digital or analog.
There are digital phone softwares that make use of Full-duplex
soundcards. Net2Phone is one. All you need is a full-duplex audio
card.

Sure, but I'm talking about GSM and DECT, not soundcards. I'm aware that
this is due to the provider 'stealing' bandwidth from me, but it's much
easier for them to do that with a digital system than it is with
analogue. I've never encountered an analogue telephone system that
operated half-duplex. Perhaps I just haven't used enough of them?



As to sound quality, I've had 10 or more cordless or mobile phones over
the years, and they all had way bigger problems than the sound quality.
Even today, getting a reliable GSM connection is a problem, and I'm only
twenty miles from London, wedged between two major motorway routes - one
of the "100% coverage" areas, they tell me, and our Panasonic DECT phone
seems to enjoy listening to the neighbours' baby alarms.

GSM is a form of compression. Compression and decompression require
processing power. Why can't they just use 8 Khz, 8-bit, mono PCM?

GSM is more than just a form of compression, but I get your point. My
guess is that PCM is inefficient in bandwidth terms. 8 kHz, 8 bit mono
PCM would be 8 kbytes/sec one way (I think... I've been drinking). The
service providers probably want to get our conversations into a lot less
bandwidth than that, so that they can maximise their return on all that
expensive international fibre.

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

Hi,

In message , Radium
writes
Glenn Booth wrote in message
...
The rest of the thread has done this to death by know, but am I the only
one that misses the single best feature of analogue phone systems - the
ability for both parties to talk *at the same time* and be heard
continuously.

Digital is also capable of such.

Obviously digital systems are capable of it, but the ones I have used
(DECT, GSM) don't do it. There is a very obvious 'coming and going' of
the other parties' voice while I am speaking.


All the digital systems I've used seem to be like
walkie-talkies; while one party speaks, the other party cannot be heard.
It kills the nuance of a telephone conversation, because the provider is
only giving me a half duplex connection.

The provider is being stingy. Nothing to do with digital or analog.
There are digital phone softwares that make use of Full-duplex
soundcards. Net2Phone is one. All you need is a full-duplex audio
card.

Sure, but I'm talking about GSM and DECT, not soundcards. I'm aware that
this is due to the provider 'stealing' bandwidth from me, but it's much
easier for them to do that with a digital system than it is with
analogue. I've never encountered an analogue telephone system that
operated half-duplex. Perhaps I just haven't used enough of them?



As to sound quality, I've had 10 or more cordless or mobile phones over
the years, and they all had way bigger problems than the sound quality.
Even today, getting a reliable GSM connection is a problem, and I'm only
twenty miles from London, wedged between two major motorway routes - one
of the "100% coverage" areas, they tell me, and our Panasonic DECT phone
seems to enjoy listening to the neighbours' baby alarms.

GSM is a form of compression. Compression and decompression require
processing power. Why can't they just use 8 Khz, 8-bit, mono PCM?

GSM is more than just a form of compression, but I get your point. My
guess is that PCM is inefficient in bandwidth terms. 8 kHz, 8 bit mono
PCM would be 8 kbytes/sec one way (I think... I've been drinking). The
service providers probably want to get our conversations into a lot less
bandwidth than that, so that they can maximise their return on all that
expensive international fibre.

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:34:21 +0000, Glenn Booth
wrote:

Hi,

In message , Radium
writes
Glenn Booth wrote in message
...
The rest of the thread has done this to death by know, but am I the only
one that misses the single best feature of analogue phone systems - the
ability for both parties to talk *at the same time* and be heard
continuously.

Digital is also capable of such.

Obviously digital systems are capable of it, but the ones I have used
(DECT, GSM) don't do it. There is a very obvious 'coming and going' of
the other parties' voice while I am speaking.


All the digital systems I've used seem to be like
walkie-talkies; while one party speaks, the other party cannot be heard.
It kills the nuance of a telephone conversation, because the provider is
only giving me a half duplex connection.

The provider is being stingy. Nothing to do with digital or analog.
There are digital phone softwares that make use of Full-duplex
soundcards. Net2Phone is one. All you need is a full-duplex audio
card.

Sure, but I'm talking about GSM and DECT, not soundcards. I'm aware that
this is due to the provider 'stealing' bandwidth from me, but it's much
easier for them to do that with a digital system than it is with
analogue. I've never encountered an analogue telephone system that
operated half-duplex. Perhaps I just haven't used enough of them?

I'm just guessing, but what you're probably hearing is silence
suppression, which tends to sound a lot like a half-duplex connection.
All part of the provider trying to cram as many calls into the
available spectrum as possible.

The typical digital cell call takes around 8Kbps (due to lossy
compression) vs. 64Kbps in a POTS connection. That's a big savings to
justify the lousy sound quality.

Joe

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:34:21 +0000, Glenn Booth
wrote:

Hi,

In message , Radium
writes
Glenn Booth wrote in message
...
The rest of the thread has done this to death by know, but am I the only
one that misses the single best feature of analogue phone systems - the
ability for both parties to talk *at the same time* and be heard
continuously.

Digital is also capable of such.

Obviously digital systems are capable of it, but the ones I have used
(DECT, GSM) don't do it. There is a very obvious 'coming and going' of
the other parties' voice while I am speaking.


All the digital systems I've used seem to be like
walkie-talkies; while one party speaks, the other party cannot be heard.
It kills the nuance of a telephone conversation, because the provider is
only giving me a half duplex connection.

The provider is being stingy. Nothing to do with digital or analog.
There are digital phone softwares that make use of Full-duplex
soundcards. Net2Phone is one. All you need is a full-duplex audio
card.

Sure, but I'm talking about GSM and DECT, not soundcards. I'm aware that
this is due to the provider 'stealing' bandwidth from me, but it's much
easier for them to do that with a digital system than it is with
analogue. I've never encountered an analogue telephone system that
operated half-duplex. Perhaps I just haven't used enough of them?

I'm just guessing, but what you're probably hearing is silence
suppression, which tends to sound a lot like a half-duplex connection.
All part of the provider trying to cram as many calls into the
available spectrum as possible.

The typical digital cell call takes around 8Kbps (due to lossy
compression) vs. 64Kbps in a POTS connection. That's a big savings to
justify the lousy sound quality.

Joe

8-bit, 8 KHz, and mono = 8x8x1 = 64 kbps
As you said, this would be impractical due to bandwidth limits.

How about 7 KHz, 1-bit, mono PCM

Glenn Booth wrote in message ...
GSM is more than just a form of compression, but I get your point. My
guess is that PCM is inefficient in bandwidth terms. 8 kHz, 8 bit mono
PCM would be 8 kbytes/sec one way (I think... I've been drinking). The
service providers probably want to get our conversations into a lot less
bandwidth than that, so that they can maximise their return on all that
expensive international fibre.

8-bit, 8 KHz, and mono = 8x8x1 = 64 kbps
As you said, this would be impractical due to bandwidth limits.

How about 7 KHz, 1-bit, mono PCM

Glenn Booth wrote in message ...
GSM is more than just a form of compression, but I get your point. My
guess is that PCM is inefficient in bandwidth terms. 8 kHz, 8 bit mono
PCM would be 8 kbytes/sec one way (I think... I've been drinking). The
service providers probably want to get our conversations into a lot less
bandwidth than that, so that they can maximise their return on all that
expensive international fibre.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:34:21 +0000, Glenn Booth
wrote:

Hi,

In message , Radium
writes
Glenn Booth wrote in message
...
The rest of the thread has done this to death by know, but am I the only
one that misses the single best feature of analogue phone systems - the
ability for both parties to talk *at the same time* and be heard
continuously.

Digital is also capable of such.

Obviously digital systems are capable of it, but the ones I have used
(DECT, GSM) don't do it. There is a very obvious 'coming and going' of
the other parties' voice while I am speaking.

I use three Samsung DECT 'phones at home, and I have never noticed any
such effect. The DECT system is full-duplex by nature. My Siemens GSM
mobile doesn't show this effect either. Maybe you have a psychosomatic
problem?

All the digital systems I've used seem to be like
walkie-talkies; while one party speaks, the other party cannot be heard.
It kills the nuance of a telephone conversation, because the provider is
only giving me a half duplex connection.

The provider is being stingy. Nothing to do with digital or analog.
There are digital phone softwares that make use of Full-duplex
soundcards. Net2Phone is one. All you need is a full-duplex audio
card.

Sure, but I'm talking about GSM and DECT, not soundcards. I'm aware that
this is due to the provider 'stealing' bandwidth from me, but it's much
easier for them to do that with a digital system than it is with
analogue. I've never encountered an analogue telephone system that
operated half-duplex. Perhaps I just haven't used enough of them?

I've never heard this effect with DECT or GSM, only on the 'spider'
conference 'phone at work..............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:34:21 +0000, Glenn Booth
wrote:

Hi,

In message , Radium
writes
Glenn Booth wrote in message
...
The rest of the thread has done this to death by know, but am I the only
one that misses the single best feature of analogue phone systems - the
ability for both parties to talk *at the same time* and be heard
continuously.

Digital is also capable of such.

Obviously digital systems are capable of it, but the ones I have used
(DECT, GSM) don't do it. There is a very obvious 'coming and going' of
the other parties' voice while I am speaking.

I use three Samsung DECT 'phones at home, and I have never noticed any
such effect. The DECT system is full-duplex by nature. My Siemens GSM
mobile doesn't show this effect either. Maybe you have a psychosomatic
problem?

All the digital systems I've used seem to be like
walkie-talkies; while one party speaks, the other party cannot be heard.
It kills the nuance of a telephone conversation, because the provider is
only giving me a half duplex connection.

The provider is being stingy. Nothing to do with digital or analog.
There are digital phone softwares that make use of Full-duplex
soundcards. Net2Phone is one. All you need is a full-duplex audio
card.

Sure, but I'm talking about GSM and DECT, not soundcards. I'm aware that
this is due to the provider 'stealing' bandwidth from me, but it's much
easier for them to do that with a digital system than it is with
analogue. I've never encountered an analogue telephone system that
operated half-duplex. Perhaps I just haven't used enough of them?

I've never heard this effect with DECT or GSM, only on the 'spider'
conference 'phone at work..............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Hi,

In message , Stewart Pinkerton
writes
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:34:21 +0000, Glenn Booth
wrote:

Hi,

In message , Radium
writes
Glenn Booth wrote in message
...
The rest of the thread has done this to death by know, but am I the only
one that misses the single best feature of analogue phone systems - the
ability for both parties to talk *at the same time* and be heard
continuously.

Digital is also capable of such.

Obviously digital systems are capable of it, but the ones I have used
(DECT, GSM) don't do it. There is a very obvious 'coming and going' of
the other parties' voice while I am speaking.

I use three Samsung DECT 'phones at home, and I have never noticed any
such effect. The DECT system is full-duplex by nature. My Siemens GSM
mobile doesn't show this effect either. Maybe you have a psychosomatic
problem?

I might well have a psychosomatic problem, but not necessarily related
to phones ;-)

You are probably right about the DECT thing - ours is a very, very poor
Onis unit (not recommended). I have a Panasonic that I've yet to hook
up, so it may well change. The syndrome is definitely there on my
(Nokia) GSM phone, though - I called my wife's phone (also Nokia) as a
check and there is no sign of any signal from the receiving end while
I'm talking. If we both talk at the same time, things turn strange, as
though there is some switching going on. It's the same during calls to
other people at work.

Sure, but I'm talking about GSM and DECT, not soundcards. I'm aware that
this is due to the provider 'stealing' bandwidth from me, but it's much
easier for them to do that with a digital system than it is with
analogue. I've never encountered an analogue telephone system that
operated half-duplex. Perhaps I just haven't used enough of them?

I've never heard this effect with DECT or GSM, only on the 'spider'
conference 'phone at work..............

Our voice over IP phones do this also, but I put down to them being
first generation, and not very competent.

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

Hi,

In message , Stewart Pinkerton
writes
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:34:21 +0000, Glenn Booth
wrote:

Hi,

In message , Radium
writes
Glenn Booth wrote in message
...
The rest of the thread has done this to death by know, but am I the only
one that misses the single best feature of analogue phone systems - the
ability for both parties to talk *at the same time* and be heard
continuously.

Digital is also capable of such.

Obviously digital systems are capable of it, but the ones I have used
(DECT, GSM) don't do it. There is a very obvious 'coming and going' of
the other parties' voice while I am speaking.

I use three Samsung DECT 'phones at home, and I have never noticed any
such effect. The DECT system is full-duplex by nature. My Siemens GSM
mobile doesn't show this effect either. Maybe you have a psychosomatic
problem?

I might well have a psychosomatic problem, but not necessarily related
to phones ;-)

You are probably right about the DECT thing - ours is a very, very poor
Onis unit (not recommended). I have a Panasonic that I've yet to hook
up, so it may well change. The syndrome is definitely there on my
(Nokia) GSM phone, though - I called my wife's phone (also Nokia) as a
check and there is no sign of any signal from the receiving end while
I'm talking. If we both talk at the same time, things turn strange, as
though there is some switching going on. It's the same during calls to
other people at work.

Sure, but I'm talking about GSM and DECT, not soundcards. I'm aware that
this is due to the provider 'stealing' bandwidth from me, but it's much
easier for them to do that with a digital system than it is with
analogue. I've never encountered an analogue telephone system that
operated half-duplex. Perhaps I just haven't used enough of them?

I've never heard this effect with DECT or GSM, only on the 'spider'
conference 'phone at work..............

Our voice over IP phones do this also, but I put down to them being
first generation, and not very competent.

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

Glenn Booth wrote:
Hi,

In message , Radium
writes

Glenn Booth wrote in message
...

The rest of the thread has done this to death by know, but am I the only
one that misses the single best feature of analogue phone systems - the
ability for both parties to talk *at the same time* and be heard
continuously.


Digital is also capable of such.


Obviously digital systems are capable of it, but the ones I have used
(DECT, GSM) don't do it. There is a very obvious 'coming and going' of
the other parties' voice while I am speaking.

The effect you speak of is most likely due to what is called the
"nonlinear" or "residual" echo supressor which some manufacturers
have on their mobiles. This function mutes the uplink audio when
the downlink is talking so that the round-trip echo path is broken
(and thus echo stopped) when the far-end (landline) talker speaking.
--
% Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side
%%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall."
%%%% % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

Glenn Booth wrote:
Hi,

In message , Radium
writes

Glenn Booth wrote in message
...

The rest of the thread has done this to death by know, but am I the only
one that misses the single best feature of analogue phone systems - the
ability for both parties to talk *at the same time* and be heard
continuously.


Digital is also capable of such.


Obviously digital systems are capable of it, but the ones I have used
(DECT, GSM) don't do it. There is a very obvious 'coming and going' of
the other parties' voice while I am speaking.

The effect you speak of is most likely due to what is called the
"nonlinear" or "residual" echo supressor which some manufacturers
have on their mobiles. This function mutes the uplink audio when
the downlink is talking so that the round-trip echo path is broken
(and thus echo stopped) when the far-end (landline) talker speaking.
--
% Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side
%%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall."
%%%% % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

In article ,
Glenn Booth wrote:

I've never encountered an analogue telephone system that
operated half-duplex. Perhaps I just haven't used enough of them?

Actually, the analog telephone system is not really analog any more. It
is only analog between your telephone and the Central Office it is
served by (Central Office being NA jargon, the terms may be different in
Blighty). The signal is digitzed at the CO and the switching system
used to connect calls is 100% digital. (Or at least it is in the US,
though probably there was still analog switching equipment in rural and
other small exchanges 10-20 years ago.)

--
Tim

In article ,
Glenn Booth wrote:

I've never encountered an analogue telephone system that
operated half-duplex. Perhaps I just haven't used enough of them?

Actually, the analog telephone system is not really analog any more. It
is only analog between your telephone and the Central Office it is
served by (Central Office being NA jargon, the terms may be different in
Blighty). The signal is digitzed at the CO and the switching system
used to connect calls is 100% digital. (Or at least it is in the US,
though probably there was still analog switching equipment in rural and
other small exchanges 10-20 years ago.)

--
Tim

(Radium) writes:
What the @%#$ is this website talking about?

http://telecom.hellodirect.com/docs/...l.1.051501.asp

They say:

"analog can deliver better sound quality than digital"

Ever compare a the voice quality of an analog cell phone to that of a
digital cell phone with both close to the tower? You may be surprised
tha the result does not agree with "crystal clear digital" BS the cell
phone makers would like you to believe.

Ever tried one of those first generation AT&T digital answering
machines? Woof.

Have you considered the nonlinearities introduced in a low-cost
analog-digital converter?

Digital is not categorially better. Poorly implemented digital can in
fact be far inferior to analog. After all...what we as humans
perceive is very much analog, and in the purest state, avoiding a
domain transformation will in fact give you the purest sound. But, as
in many things, the devil's in the details.

Best Regards,
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | http://www.toddh.net/
X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/
/ \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | "4 lines suffice."

(Radium) writes:
What the @%#$ is this website talking about?

http://telecom.hellodirect.com/docs/...l.1.051501.asp

They say:

"analog can deliver better sound quality than digital"

Ever compare a the voice quality of an analog cell phone to that of a
digital cell phone with both close to the tower? You may be surprised
tha the result does not agree with "crystal clear digital" BS the cell
phone makers would like you to believe.

Ever tried one of those first generation AT&T digital answering
machines? Woof.

Have you considered the nonlinearities introduced in a low-cost
analog-digital converter?

Digital is not categorially better. Poorly implemented digital can in
fact be far inferior to analog. After all...what we as humans
perceive is very much analog, and in the purest state, avoiding a
domain transformation will in fact give you the purest sound. But, as
in many things, the devil's in the details.

Best Regards,
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | http://www.toddh.net/
X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/
/ \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | "4 lines suffice."

Radium wrote:

What the @%#$ is this website talking about?

http://telecom.hellodirect.com/docs/...l.1.051501.asp

They say:

"analog can deliver better sound quality than digital"

"Digital offers better clarity, but analog gives you richer quality."

"The advantage to analog cordless products? Well, they're a bit
cheaper. And the sound quality is richer."

"Analog's sound quality is still superior—as some users with
dual-transmission phones will manually switch to analog for better
sound when they're not concerned with a crowded coverage area"

"An analog phone will give you the richest sound quality and usually
enough range."

If you start with an analogue signal from say a mic + amplifier and sample it
then according to Shannons sampling theorem the original spectrum should be
recoverable provided it is first band limited and the sampling frequency is at
least twice as high as the highest frequency of interest (the bandwidth). The
point being that digital is as good as analogue and not the other way around.
Where digital scores is that whereas an analogue signal can get further
degraded if it is transmitted or recorded, digital does not. Furthermore
digital signals can be compressed so that they consume less bandwidth - at the
expense of catastrophic break down at certain low SNRs as opposed to a gradual
deteriation for an analogue signal. As for richness and such things in terms
of audio quality I am unsure if there has been any double blind tests to see
if people can tell the difference. (like gold plated conenctors and such!)
Another advantage of digital is in filtering, linear phase filtering is
possible whereas in analogue this is only approximate. But lets face it -
analogue has had it other than as a front end.

Tom

Radium wrote:

What the @%#$ is this website talking about?

http://telecom.hellodirect.com/docs/...l.1.051501.asp

They say:

"analog can deliver better sound quality than digital"

"Digital offers better clarity, but analog gives you richer quality."

"The advantage to analog cordless products? Well, they're a bit
cheaper. And the sound quality is richer."

"Analog's sound quality is still superior—as some users with
dual-transmission phones will manually switch to analog for better
sound when they're not concerned with a crowded coverage area"

"An analog phone will give you the richest sound quality and usually
enough range."

If you start with an analogue signal from say a mic + amplifier and sample it
then according to Shannons sampling theorem the original spectrum should be
recoverable provided it is first band limited and the sampling frequency is at
least twice as high as the highest frequency of interest (the bandwidth). The
point being that digital is as good as analogue and not the other way around.
Where digital scores is that whereas an analogue signal can get further
degraded if it is transmitted or recorded, digital does not. Furthermore
digital signals can be compressed so that they consume less bandwidth - at the
expense of catastrophic break down at certain low SNRs as opposed to a gradual
deteriation for an analogue signal. As for richness and such things in terms
of audio quality I am unsure if there has been any double blind tests to see
if people can tell the difference. (like gold plated conenctors and such!)
Another advantage of digital is in filtering, linear phase filtering is
possible whereas in analogue this is only approximate. But lets face it -
analogue has had it other than as a front end.

Tom

Tom writes:

If you start with an analogue signal from say a mic + amplifier and sample it
then according to Shannons sampling theorem the original spectrum should be
recoverable provided it is first band limited and the sampling frequency is at
least twice as high as the highest frequency of interest (the
bandwidth).

Caveat: add "Assuming an ideal digital to analog conversion."

The point being that digital is as good as analogue and not the
other way around. Where digital scores is that whereas an analogue
signal can get further degraded if it is transmitted or recorded,
digital does not.

Ding!


Furthermore digital signals can be compressed so that they consume
less bandwidth - at the expense of catastrophic break down at
certain low SNRs as opposed to a gradual deteriation for an analogue
signal. As for richness and such things in terms of audio quality I
am unsure if there has been any double blind tests to see if people
can tell the difference. (like gold plated conenctors and such!)

Depending on bit rate and bit depth, I'm certain double blind results
would yield more fruit than a double blind against gold plating.
There is some really crappy digital out there in the world. Cell
phones are the worst. Digital cordless phones (our original subject)
are pretty good in my experience.

Another advantage of digital is in filtering, linear phase filtering
is possible whereas in analogue this is only approximate. But lets
face it - analogue has had it other than as a front end.

Economically, and for RF transmission, I quite agree.

But don't anyone kid themselves--if you're talking cell phones,
wireless providers haven't gone digital for voice quality reasons,
that's for DAMNED sure. They've gone digital so they can crank the
screws on the "calls that fit in our bandwidth" versus "voice quality
our customers will accept" to maximize the capacity on a given set of
FCC frequencies, and tower site equipment.

More to the original point, digital is by NO means any guarantee of
"better" versus analog, or vice versa. It's all in the implementation
details. And don't forget that at the end of the day, the signal has
to end up back in the analog domain if it's humans that are going to
perceive it.

Best Regards,
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | http://www.toddh.net/
X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/
/ \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | "4 lines suffice."

Tom writes:

If you start with an analogue signal from say a mic + amplifier and sample it
then according to Shannons sampling theorem the original spectrum should be
recoverable provided it is first band limited and the sampling frequency is at
least twice as high as the highest frequency of interest (the
bandwidth).

Caveat: add "Assuming an ideal digital to analog conversion."

The point being that digital is as good as analogue and not the
other way around. Where digital scores is that whereas an analogue
signal can get further degraded if it is transmitted or recorded,
digital does not.

Ding!


Furthermore digital signals can be compressed so that they consume
less bandwidth - at the expense of catastrophic break down at
certain low SNRs as opposed to a gradual deteriation for an analogue
signal. As for richness and such things in terms of audio quality I
am unsure if there has been any double blind tests to see if people
can tell the difference. (like gold plated conenctors and such!)

Depending on bit rate and bit depth, I'm certain double blind results
would yield more fruit than a double blind against gold plating.
There is some really crappy digital out there in the world. Cell
phones are the worst. Digital cordless phones (our original subject)
are pretty good in my experience.

Another advantage of digital is in filtering, linear phase filtering
is possible whereas in analogue this is only approximate. But lets
face it - analogue has had it other than as a front end.

Economically, and for RF transmission, I quite agree.

But don't anyone kid themselves--if you're talking cell phones,
wireless providers haven't gone digital for voice quality reasons,
that's for DAMNED sure. They've gone digital so they can crank the
screws on the "calls that fit in our bandwidth" versus "voice quality
our customers will accept" to maximize the capacity on a given set of
FCC frequencies, and tower site equipment.

More to the original point, digital is by NO means any guarantee of
"better" versus analog, or vice versa. It's all in the implementation
details. And don't forget that at the end of the day, the signal has
to end up back in the analog domain if it's humans that are going to
perceive it.

Best Regards,
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | http://www.toddh.net/
X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/
/ \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | "4 lines suffice."