Here's one for the digital experts: I do a lot of interviews in which
the other party is on a cell phone, and I think I've noticed a
difference over time in how they work.

If the call is conducted at a busy time of day, and there are clear
signs of bandwidth becoming limited, it used to be that there would be
a corresponding number of dropouts in the conversation. Lately (and I
call mostly the Chicago and Los Angeles areas) I've detected something
different: it sounds like they're just reducing the audio bitrate. It
starts to sound like it's coming from a cheap microphone.

Does anyone know?

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:40:47 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

Here's one for the digital experts: I do a lot of interviews in which
the other party is on a cell phone, and I think I've noticed a
difference over time in how they work.

If the call is conducted at a busy time of day, and there are clear
signs of bandwidth becoming limited, it used to be that there would be a
corresponding number of dropouts in the conversation. Lately (and I call
mostly the Chicago and Los Angeles areas) I've detected something
different: it sounds like they're just reducing the audio bitrate. It
starts to sound like it's coming from a cheap microphone.

Does anyone know?

I don't, but cruddy audio + dropouts is worse than just cruddy audio, so
there'd certainly be pressure on the equipment manufacturers to make the
change.

--
Tim Wescott
Control systems, embedded software and circuit design
I'm looking for work! See my website if you're interested
http://www.wescottdesign.com

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:54:13 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:40:47 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

Here's one for the digital experts: I do a lot of interviews in which
the other party is on a cell phone, and I think I've noticed a
difference over time in how they work.

If the call is conducted at a busy time of day, and there are clear
signs of bandwidth becoming limited, it used to be that there would be a
corresponding number of dropouts in the conversation. Lately (and I call
mostly the Chicago and Los Angeles areas) I've detected something
different: it sounds like they're just reducing the audio bitrate. It
starts to sound like it's coming from a cheap microphone.

Does anyone know?

I don't, but cruddy audio + dropouts is worse than just cruddy audio, so
there'd certainly be pressure on the equipment manufacturers to make the
change.

Yeah, well, the cruddy audio is something I've just noticed over the
past year. The dropouts have been going on for years.

Chicago, particularly, seems to have bandwidth problems on both
landlines and cell systems. I try to time my calls for early morning.
If I do, the audio is perfectly clear.

It's gotten to be a problem for my transcribing service. Not knowing
our jargon, they have a really hard time with it when it gets muddy.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 12:24:14 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:54:13 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:40:47 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

Here's one for the digital experts: I do a lot of interviews in which
the other party is on a cell phone, and I think I've noticed a
difference over time in how they work.

If the call is conducted at a busy time of day, and there are clear
signs of bandwidth becoming limited, it used to be that there would be
a corresponding number of dropouts in the conversation. Lately (and I
call mostly the Chicago and Los Angeles areas) I've detected something
different: it sounds like they're just reducing the audio bitrate. It
starts to sound like it's coming from a cheap microphone.

Does anyone know?

I don't, but cruddy audio + dropouts is worse than just cruddy audio, so
there'd certainly be pressure on the equipment manufacturers to make the
change.

Yeah, well, the cruddy audio is something I've just noticed over the
past year. The dropouts have been going on for years.

Chicago, particularly, seems to have bandwidth problems on both
landlines and cell systems. I try to time my calls for early morning. If
I do, the audio is perfectly clear.

It's gotten to be a problem for my transcribing service. Not knowing our
jargon, they have a really hard time with it when it gets muddy.

Hmm. Skype? Record locally and email?

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

I'm looking for work -- see my website!

Ed Huntress wrote on 7/15/2016 12:24 PM:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:54:13 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:40:47 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

Here's one for the digital experts: I do a lot of interviews in which
the other party is on a cell phone, and I think I've noticed a
difference over time in how they work.

If the call is conducted at a busy time of day, and there are clear
signs of bandwidth becoming limited, it used to be that there would be a
corresponding number of dropouts in the conversation. Lately (and I call
mostly the Chicago and Los Angeles areas) I've detected something
different: it sounds like they're just reducing the audio bitrate. It
starts to sound like it's coming from a cheap microphone.

Does anyone know?

I don't, but cruddy audio + dropouts is worse than just cruddy audio, so
there'd certainly be pressure on the equipment manufacturers to make the
change.

Yeah, well, the cruddy audio is something I've just noticed over the
past year. The dropouts have been going on for years.

Chicago, particularly, seems to have bandwidth problems on both
landlines and cell systems. I try to time my calls for early morning.
If I do, the audio is perfectly clear.

It's gotten to be a problem for my transcribing service. Not knowing
our jargon, they have a really hard time with it when it gets muddy.

In the beginning cellphones were all analogue. The sound quality can
vary due to distance between the cellphone and the cellphone tower.

Today cellphones have almost all gone digital. You cannot buy an
analogue cellphone anymore and even if you still have an analogue
cellphone you might not be able to find a service provide which still
runs the old analogue cellphone systems.

Digital cellphone system is almost like digital TV. You either get it
100% or you don't get it at all, because the signals are all in ones and
zeros.

The difference in sound quality is most likely due use of "Voice over
IP" (people dialing you using Skype or other WiFi connection Apps to
avoid airtime charges), or use of low quality Bluetooth headset when
talking to you (most cellphones have built-in Bluetooth technology).

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:17:48 -0400, BPVeW???????? ? ?????????fZSSO
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote on 7/15/2016 12:24 PM:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:54:13 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:40:47 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

Here's one for the digital experts: I do a lot of interviews in which
the other party is on a cell phone, and I think I've noticed a
difference over time in how they work.

If the call is conducted at a busy time of day, and there are clear
signs of bandwidth becoming limited, it used to be that there would be a
corresponding number of dropouts in the conversation. Lately (and I call
mostly the Chicago and Los Angeles areas) I've detected something
different: it sounds like they're just reducing the audio bitrate. It
starts to sound like it's coming from a cheap microphone.

Does anyone know?

I don't, but cruddy audio + dropouts is worse than just cruddy audio, so
there'd certainly be pressure on the equipment manufacturers to make the
change.

Yeah, well, the cruddy audio is something I've just noticed over the
past year. The dropouts have been going on for years.

Chicago, particularly, seems to have bandwidth problems on both
landlines and cell systems. I try to time my calls for early morning.
If I do, the audio is perfectly clear.

It's gotten to be a problem for my transcribing service. Not knowing
our jargon, they have a really hard time with it when it gets muddy.

In the beginning cellphones were all analogue. The sound quality can
vary due to distance between the cellphone and the cellphone tower.

Today cellphones have almost all gone digital. You cannot buy an
analogue cellphone anymore and even if you still have an analogue
cellphone you might not be able to find a service provide which still
runs the old analogue cellphone systems.

Digital cellphone system is almost like digital TV. You either get it
100% or you don't get it at all, because the signals are all in ones and
zeros.

The difference in sound quality is most likely due use of "Voice over
IP" (people dialing you using Skype or other WiFi connection Apps to
avoid airtime charges), or use of low quality Bluetooth headset when
talking to you (most cellphones have built-in Bluetooth technology).

VoIP is a frequent problem in recording for articles. That's why I
still have a conventional landline at my end, recording directly into
the computer. But I also use my cell phone with an earbud microphone
into my Sony digital recorder -- the difference is almost
undetectable.I don't bother with the in-line adapter on a cell phone
anymore.

Having played with different bit rates over the years, it really does
sound like a bit-rate reduction to me. I don't think my interviewees
are using Bluetooth. I never use it for anything that has to be
transcribed, myself.

Ah, well, it's not something that seriously bothers me because it only
happens once in a while. I was thinking about it today because I had
to transcribe a half-hour conversation myself (which I hate to do),
because my transcribing service couldn't make it out. They have a good
collection of audio filters, but they couldn't do it. I could, because
I know what the other guy was saying.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:55:44 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 12:24:14 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:54:13 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:40:47 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

Here's one for the digital experts: I do a lot of interviews in which
the other party is on a cell phone, and I think I've noticed a
difference over time in how they work.

If the call is conducted at a busy time of day, and there are clear
signs of bandwidth becoming limited, it used to be that there would be
a corresponding number of dropouts in the conversation. Lately (and I
call mostly the Chicago and Los Angeles areas) I've detected something
different: it sounds like they're just reducing the audio bitrate. It
starts to sound like it's coming from a cheap microphone.

Does anyone know?

I don't, but cruddy audio + dropouts is worse than just cruddy audio, so
there'd certainly be pressure on the equipment manufacturers to make the
change.

Yeah, well, the cruddy audio is something I've just noticed over the
past year. The dropouts have been going on for years.

Chicago, particularly, seems to have bandwidth problems on both
landlines and cell systems. I try to time my calls for early morning. If
I do, the audio is perfectly clear.

It's gotten to be a problem for my transcribing service. Not knowing our
jargon, they have a really hard time with it when it gets muddy.

Hmm. Skype?

Not good. As a last resort, I'll ask the other guy to get on a
landline and to call me.

Record locally and email?

It's not a thing for which I can impose on other people too much, but
that's an interesting thought.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
Here's one for the digital experts: I do a lot of interviews in
which
the other party is on a cell phone, and I think I've noticed a
difference over time in how they work.

If the call is conducted at a busy time of day, and there are clear
signs of bandwidth becoming limited, it used to be that there would
be
a corresponding number of dropouts in the conversation. Lately (and
I
call mostly the Chicago and Los Angeles areas) I've detected
something
different: it sounds like they're just reducing the audio bitrate.
It
starts to sound like it's coming from a cheap microphone.

Does anyone know?

--
Ed Huntress

I studied voice and data communications in 1970 and took a refresher
class in the phone system in the 1990's when an interest in
infrastructure didn't brand one a potential terrorist. I haven't
looked into it since and don't intend to now.

My cellular internet modem drops out completely when the system hits
voice call capacity. There are a number of ways they could reduce the
audio data rate when that happens such as duplicating frames or
dropping the least significant bit, which they do anyway to some
extent to transmit the on/off hook signal. That's why the dialup
maximum is 56K instead of 64K.

Digital TV drops a lot of data intentionally to stuff 20MB of HD video
into 6MB of TV channel. They send a full "key" frame and then only the
changes to it, until the next full frame. It works fine when the
background is static or changes slowly. It isn't quite fast enough for
football play closeups so the TV may display larger solid blocks
momentarily.

Speech can be similarly trimmed down to taking and sending one sample
every 50 milliseconds or so and just repeating it until the next
sample, because most of us can't change the shape of our vocal tracts
any faster than that. The intelligibility is still tolerable although
JFK demanded and got a higher sound quality digital phone that needed
special dedicated lines.

The underlying tech of digital phones dates from a secure channel
between Roosevelt and Churchill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIGSALY
"The voice encoding used the fact that speech varies fairly slowly as
the components of the throat move. The system extracts information
about the voice signal around 25 times a second."

-- C4I4U

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:31:20 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
Here's one for the digital experts: I do a lot of interviews in
which
the other party is on a cell phone, and I think I've noticed a
difference over time in how they work.

If the call is conducted at a busy time of day, and there are clear
signs of bandwidth becoming limited, it used to be that there would
be
a corresponding number of dropouts in the conversation. Lately (and
I
call mostly the Chicago and Los Angeles areas) I've detected
something
different: it sounds like they're just reducing the audio bitrate.
It
starts to sound like it's coming from a cheap microphone.

Does anyone know?

--
Ed Huntress

I studied voice and data communications in 1970 and took a refresher
class in the phone system in the 1990's when an interest in
infrastructure didn't brand one a potential terrorist. I haven't
looked into it since and don't intend to now.

My cellular internet modem drops out completely when the system hits
voice call capacity. There are a number of ways they could reduce the
audio data rate when that happens such as duplicating frames or
dropping the least significant bit, which they do anyway to some
extent to transmit the on/off hook signal. That's why the dialup
maximum is 56K instead of 64K.

Digital TV drops a lot of data intentionally to stuff 20MB of HD video
into 6MB of TV channel. They send a full "key" frame and then only the
changes to it, until the next full frame. It works fine when the
background is static or changes slowly. It isn't quite fast enough for
football play closeups so the TV may display larger solid blocks
momentarily.

Speech can be similarly trimmed down to taking and sending one sample
every 50 milliseconds or so and just repeating it until the next
sample, because most of us can't change the shape of our vocal tracts
any faster than that. The intelligibility is still tolerable although
JFK demanded and got a higher sound quality digital phone that needed
special dedicated lines.

The underlying tech of digital phones dates from a secure channel
between Roosevelt and Churchill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIGSALY
"The voice encoding used the fact that speech varies fairly slowly as
the components of the throat move. The system extracts information
about the voice signal around 25 times a second."

-- C4I4U


Interesting. If you've played with recording systems, computer or
otherwise, that record digitally and that allow you to select from a
menu of bitrates, you've encountered what I'm talking about. Any
decent digital recorder today has optional record-time settings, which
actually are different bit rates.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:17:48 -0400, BPVeW???????? ? ?????????fZSSO
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote on 7/15/2016 12:24 PM:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:54:13 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:40:47 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

Here's one for the digital experts: I do a lot of interviews in which
the other party is on a cell phone, and I think I've noticed a
difference over time in how they work.

If the call is conducted at a busy time of day, and there are clear
signs of bandwidth becoming limited, it used to be that there would be a
corresponding number of dropouts in the conversation. Lately (and I call
mostly the Chicago and Los Angeles areas) I've detected something
different: it sounds like they're just reducing the audio bitrate. It
starts to sound like it's coming from a cheap microphone.

Does anyone know?

I don't, but cruddy audio + dropouts is worse than just cruddy audio, so
there'd certainly be pressure on the equipment manufacturers to make the
change.

Yeah, well, the cruddy audio is something I've just noticed over the
past year. The dropouts have been going on for years.

Chicago, particularly, seems to have bandwidth problems on both
landlines and cell systems. I try to time my calls for early morning.
If I do, the audio is perfectly clear.

It's gotten to be a problem for my transcribing service. Not knowing
our jargon, they have a really hard time with it when it gets muddy.

In the beginning cellphones were all analogue. The sound quality can
vary due to distance between the cellphone and the cellphone tower.

Today cellphones have almost all gone digital. You cannot buy an
analogue cellphone anymore and even if you still have an analogue
cellphone you might not be able to find a service provide which still
runs the old analogue cellphone systems.

Digital cellphone system is almost like digital TV. You either get it
100% or you don't get it at all, because the signals are all in ones and
zeros.

The difference in sound quality is most likely due use of "Voice over
IP" (people dialing you using Skype or other WiFi connection Apps to
avoid airtime charges), or use of low quality Bluetooth headset when
talking to you (most cellphones have built-in Bluetooth technology).




I found this the other day..here is a perfect time to post it...

http://allnewspipeline.com/SOP_303_G...ecret_Plan.php


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:31:20 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
Here's one for the digital experts: I do a lot of interviews in
which
the other party is on a cell phone, and I think I've noticed a
difference over time in how they work.

If the call is conducted at a busy time of day, and there are
clear
signs of bandwidth becoming limited, it used to be that there
would
be
a corresponding number of dropouts in the conversation. Lately
(and
I
call mostly the Chicago and Los Angeles areas) I've detected
something
different: it sounds like they're just reducing the audio bitrate.
It
starts to sound like it's coming from a cheap microphone.

Does anyone know?

--
Ed Huntress

I studied voice and data communications in 1970 and took a refresher
class in the phone system in the 1990's when an interest in
infrastructure didn't brand one a potential terrorist. I haven't
looked into it since and don't intend to now.

My cellular internet modem drops out completely when the system hits
voice call capacity. There are a number of ways they could reduce
the
audio data rate when that happens such as duplicating frames or
dropping the least significant bit, which they do anyway to some
extent to transmit the on/off hook signal. That's why the dialup
maximum is 56K instead of 64K.

Digital TV drops a lot of data intentionally to stuff 20MB of HD
video
into 6MB of TV channel. They send a full "key" frame and then only
the
changes to it, until the next full frame. It works fine when the
background is static or changes slowly. It isn't quite fast enough
for
football play closeups so the TV may display larger solid blocks
momentarily.

Speech can be similarly trimmed down to taking and sending one
sample
every 50 milliseconds or so and just repeating it until the next
sample, because most of us can't change the shape of our vocal
tracts
any faster than that. The intelligibility is still tolerable
although
JFK demanded and got a higher sound quality digital phone that
needed
special dedicated lines.

The underlying tech of digital phones dates from a secure channel
between Roosevelt and Churchill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIGSALY
"The voice encoding used the fact that speech varies fairly slowly
as
the components of the throat move. The system extracts information
about the voice signal around 25 times a second."

-- C4I4U


Interesting. If you've played with recording systems, computer or
otherwise, that record digitally and that allow you to select from a
menu of bitrates, you've encountered what I'm talking about. Any
decent digital recorder today has optional record-time settings,
which
actually are different bit rates.

--
Ed Huntress

AFAIK the landline phone system is locked into the bit rates of G.711
Mu- and A-Law encoding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9C-law_algorithm
A cell phone has to be compatible with a landline, or even an old
rotary dial phone.

I don't know exactly how they might compress it, or interpolate
dropped samples. The military gear I mentioned transmitted a
simplified spectrum analysis of the speech instead of the sequential
real-time amplitudes.
--jsw

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...

I found this the other day..here is a perfect time to post it...

http://allnewspipeline.com/SOP_303_G...ecret_Plan.php

http://www.sbnation.com/2013/4/15/42...phone-shutdown

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 14:11:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:31:20 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
Here's one for the digital experts: I do a lot of interviews in
which
the other party is on a cell phone, and I think I've noticed a
difference over time in how they work.

If the call is conducted at a busy time of day, and there are
clear
signs of bandwidth becoming limited, it used to be that there
would
be
a corresponding number of dropouts in the conversation. Lately
(and
I
call mostly the Chicago and Los Angeles areas) I've detected
something
different: it sounds like they're just reducing the audio bitrate.
It
starts to sound like it's coming from a cheap microphone.

Does anyone know?

--
Ed Huntress

I studied voice and data communications in 1970 and took a refresher
class in the phone system in the 1990's when an interest in
infrastructure didn't brand one a potential terrorist. I haven't
looked into it since and don't intend to now.

My cellular internet modem drops out completely when the system hits
voice call capacity. There are a number of ways they could reduce
the
audio data rate when that happens such as duplicating frames or
dropping the least significant bit, which they do anyway to some
extent to transmit the on/off hook signal. That's why the dialup
maximum is 56K instead of 64K.

Digital TV drops a lot of data intentionally to stuff 20MB of HD
video
into 6MB of TV channel. They send a full "key" frame and then only
the
changes to it, until the next full frame. It works fine when the
background is static or changes slowly. It isn't quite fast enough
for
football play closeups so the TV may display larger solid blocks
momentarily.

Speech can be similarly trimmed down to taking and sending one
sample
every 50 milliseconds or so and just repeating it until the next
sample, because most of us can't change the shape of our vocal
tracts
any faster than that. The intelligibility is still tolerable
although
JFK demanded and got a higher sound quality digital phone that
needed
special dedicated lines.

The underlying tech of digital phones dates from a secure channel
between Roosevelt and Churchill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIGSALY
"The voice encoding used the fact that speech varies fairly slowly
as
the components of the throat move. The system extracts information
about the voice signal around 25 times a second."

-- C4I4U


Interesting. If you've played with recording systems, computer or
otherwise, that record digitally and that allow you to select from a
menu of bitrates, you've encountered what I'm talking about. Any
decent digital recorder today has optional record-time settings,
which
actually are different bit rates.

--
Ed Huntress

AFAIK the landline phone system is locked into the bit rates of G.711
Mu- and A-Law encoding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9C-law_algorithm
A cell phone has to be compatible with a landline, or even an old
rotary dial phone.

I don't know exactly how they might compress it, or interpolate
dropped samples. The military gear I mentioned transmitted a
simplified spectrum analysis of the speech instead of the sequential
real-time amplitudes.
--jsw


Aha! Maybe this is the clue. I should have looked it up but I was lazy
and thought one of you guys should know:

"For example, engineers at Nokia found that when they compressed voice
data to 5.15 kilobits per second, which cellphones do automatically
when a tower connection is weak, user ratings fell from “good” to
“fair.”...

"Standard compression rates vary from 12.2 kb/s to 4.75 kb/s,
depending on the volume of voice traffic and the strength of the
wireless signal. Calls compressed to speeds as low as 7.95 kb/s can
still sound almost as good as a landline connection. But beyond that,
“you start to hear compression artifacts,” including missing syllables
and distortions such as ringing or warbling..."

http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/wir...-how-to-fix-it

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


Aha! Maybe this is the clue. I should have looked it up but I was
lazy
and thought one of you guys should know:

"For example, engineers at Nokia found that when they compressed
voice
data to 5.15 kilobits per second, which cellphones do automatically
when a tower connection is weak, user ratings fell from "good" to
"fair."...

"Standard compression rates vary from 12.2 kb/s to 4.75 kb/s,
depending on the volume of voice traffic and the strength of the
wireless signal. Calls compressed to speeds as low as 7.95 kb/s can
still sound almost as good as a landline connection. But beyond
that,
"you start to hear compression artifacts," including missing
syllables
and distortions such as ringing or warbling..."

http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/wir...-how-to-fix-it

--
Ed Huntress

Where this leads...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_reallocation
"...one proposal would require all TV stations, including LPTV, to
give up all spectrum, with subsidized multichannel services replacing
over-the-air TV, even after viewers spent a great deal of money on the
DTV transition."

--jsw

Have you a new phone yet ? I just trashed my second G4 phone and have
a third. Get a new battery - battery was getting so hot it was hard to
hold the phone in your hand... Li battery dies at 65% charge level.
Short...

Can't change batteries. Phone is sealed so you can't change squat but
the card in the side. Stays on or turns on when commanded...

Ever see the shows on TV where they strip the phone and smash it ? Now
it is good luck with the composite body around tempered glass. One has
to smash it. No battery out for 2 hours...

No hiding, no calling friends to meet you at the bridge to prevent the
Red coats from crossing.

They already support anarchy in the streets and approve of it -
Now for Marshall law and house to house.

The voice audio on telephones and now cell phones is based on a paper
done in the 20's or 30's. It was for copper stranded telephone lines
that looked like a drying room for pasta. Now with Movie and Music
audio streaming, and they truncate the upper and lower frequencies for
voice many of us can't use the harmonics or hear many voices. Women
voices are often pushing the top end and men with tobacco in the jaw
push the bottom end - making voice chopped and trashed.

The cell phone hits a tower and goes VOIP until it comes out the other
end to another tower. Rarely does it tower to tower or same tower
unless in a small area and with limited cells.

Martin

On 7/15/2016 12:53 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:17:48 -0400, BPVeW???????? ? ?????????fZSSO
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote on 7/15/2016 12:24 PM:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:54:13 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:40:47 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

Here's one for the digital experts: I do a lot of interviews in which
the other party is on a cell phone, and I think I've noticed a
difference over time in how they work.

If the call is conducted at a busy time of day, and there are clear
signs of bandwidth becoming limited, it used to be that there would be a
corresponding number of dropouts in the conversation. Lately (and I call
mostly the Chicago and Los Angeles areas) I've detected something
different: it sounds like they're just reducing the audio bitrate. It
starts to sound like it's coming from a cheap microphone.

Does anyone know?

I don't, but cruddy audio + dropouts is worse than just cruddy audio, so
there'd certainly be pressure on the equipment manufacturers to make the
change.

Yeah, well, the cruddy audio is something I've just noticed over the
past year. The dropouts have been going on for years.

Chicago, particularly, seems to have bandwidth problems on both
landlines and cell systems. I try to time my calls for early morning.
If I do, the audio is perfectly clear.

It's gotten to be a problem for my transcribing service. Not knowing
our jargon, they have a really hard time with it when it gets muddy.

In the beginning cellphones were all analogue. The sound quality can
vary due to distance between the cellphone and the cellphone tower.

Today cellphones have almost all gone digital. You cannot buy an
analogue cellphone anymore and even if you still have an analogue
cellphone you might not be able to find a service provide which still
runs the old analogue cellphone systems.

Digital cellphone system is almost like digital TV. You either get it
100% or you don't get it at all, because the signals are all in ones and
zeros.

The difference in sound quality is most likely due use of "Voice over
IP" (people dialing you using Skype or other WiFi connection Apps to
avoid airtime charges), or use of low quality Bluetooth headset when
talking to you (most cellphones have built-in Bluetooth technology).




I found this the other day..here is a perfect time to post it...

http://allnewspipeline.com/SOP_303_G...ecret_Plan.php


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 2016-07-15, Ed Huntress wrote:
Here's one for the digital experts: I do a lot of interviews in which
the other party is on a cell phone, and I think I've noticed a
difference over time in how they work.

If the call is conducted at a busy time of day, and there are clear
signs of bandwidth becoming limited, it used to be that there would be
a corresponding number of dropouts in the conversation. Lately (and I
call mostly the Chicago and Los Angeles areas) I've detected something
different: it sounds like they're just reducing the audio bitrate. It
starts to sound like it's coming from a cheap microphone.

Does anyone know?


Are you on Sprint?

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 19:09:10 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Have you a new phone yet ? I just trashed my second G4 phone and have
a third. Get a new battery - battery was getting so hot it was hard to
hold the phone in your hand... Li battery dies at 65% charge level.
Short...

Can't change batteries. Phone is sealed so you can't change squat but
the card in the side. Stays on or turns on when commanded...


Any of those phones can be opened and the batteries replaced. Just not
as simple as sliding off a cover or removing a few screws
Ever see the shows on TV where they strip the phone and smash it ? Now
it is good luck with the composite body around tempered glass. One has
to smash it. No battery out for 2 hours...

No hiding, no calling friends to meet you at the bridge to prevent the
Red coats from crossing.

They already support anarchy in the streets and approve of it -
Now for Marshall law and house to house.

The voice audio on telephones and now cell phones is based on a paper
done in the 20's or 30's. It was for copper stranded telephone lines
that looked like a drying room for pasta. Now with Movie and Music
audio streaming, and they truncate the upper and lower frequencies for
voice many of us can't use the harmonics or hear many voices. Women
voices are often pushing the top end and men with tobacco in the jaw
push the bottom end - making voice chopped and trashed.

The cell phone hits a tower and goes VOIP until it comes out the other
end to another tower. Rarely does it tower to tower or same tower
unless in a small area and with limited cells.

Martin

On 7/15/2016 12:53 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:17:48 -0400, BPVeW???????? ? ?????????fZSSO
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote on 7/15/2016 12:24 PM:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:54:13 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:40:47 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

Here's one for the digital experts: I do a lot of interviews in which
the other party is on a cell phone, and I think I've noticed a
difference over time in how they work.

If the call is conducted at a busy time of day, and there are clear
signs of bandwidth becoming limited, it used to be that there would be a
corresponding number of dropouts in the conversation. Lately (and I call
mostly the Chicago and Los Angeles areas) I've detected something
different: it sounds like they're just reducing the audio bitrate. It
starts to sound like it's coming from a cheap microphone.

Does anyone know?

I don't, but cruddy audio + dropouts is worse than just cruddy audio, so
there'd certainly be pressure on the equipment manufacturers to make the
change.

Yeah, well, the cruddy audio is something I've just noticed over the
past year. The dropouts have been going on for years.

Chicago, particularly, seems to have bandwidth problems on both
landlines and cell systems. I try to time my calls for early morning.
If I do, the audio is perfectly clear.

It's gotten to be a problem for my transcribing service. Not knowing
our jargon, they have a really hard time with it when it gets muddy.

In the beginning cellphones were all analogue. The sound quality can
vary due to distance between the cellphone and the cellphone tower.

Today cellphones have almost all gone digital. You cannot buy an
analogue cellphone anymore and even if you still have an analogue
cellphone you might not be able to find a service provide which still
runs the old analogue cellphone systems.

Digital cellphone system is almost like digital TV. You either get it
100% or you don't get it at all, because the signals are all in ones and
zeros.

The difference in sound quality is most likely due use of "Voice over
IP" (people dialing you using Skype or other WiFi connection Apps to
avoid airtime charges), or use of low quality Bluetooth headset when
talking to you (most cellphones have built-in Bluetooth technology).




I found this the other day..here is a perfect time to post it...

http://allnewspipeline.com/SOP_303_G...ecret_Plan.php


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:54:13 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:40:47 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

Here's one for the digital experts: I do a lot of interviews in which
the other party is on a cell phone, and I think I've noticed a
difference over time in how they work.

If the call is conducted at a busy time of day, and there are clear
signs of bandwidth becoming limited, it used to be that there would be a
corresponding number of dropouts in the conversation. Lately (and I call
mostly the Chicago and Los Angeles areas) I've detected something
different: it sounds like they're just reducing the audio bitrate. It
starts to sound like it's coming from a cheap microphone.

Does anyone know?

I don't, but cruddy audio + dropouts is worse than just cruddy audio, so
there'd certainly be pressure on the equipment manufacturers to make the
change.

AFAIC, cellular tech still isn't ready for prime time.

--
The ultimate result of shielding men from folly
is to fill the world with fools.
-- Herbert Spencer

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 19:37:48 -0500, Ignoramus4526
wrote:

On 2016-07-15, Ed Huntress wrote:
Here's one for the digital experts: I do a lot of interviews in which
the other party is on a cell phone, and I think I've noticed a
difference over time in how they work.

If the call is conducted at a busy time of day, and there are clear
signs of bandwidth becoming limited, it used to be that there would be
a corresponding number of dropouts in the conversation. Lately (and I
call mostly the Chicago and Los Angeles areas) I've detected something
different: it sounds like they're just reducing the audio bitrate. It
starts to sound like it's coming from a cheap microphone.

Does anyone know?


Are you on Sprint?

I'm on Verizon, both for landline and for cell phones. But what I'm
describing isn't happening at my end. I'm using landline for recording
interviews, 90% of the time. It's something happening at the other
end, when they're using cell phones.

Hey, I'm headed for Chicago this coming Tuesday. If I get a break,
I'll give you a call.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:17:48 -0400, BPVeW›„«¸ï¼*ｉｇｈｔｙ ¸Ž ï¼·ï½�ｎｎï½�ｂｅ«·
›„fZSSO wrote:


Digital cellphone system is almost like digital TV. You either get it
100% or you don't get it at all, because the signals are all in ones and
zeros.

That ain't right---you can see how it really works with progressive GIFs.
Basically, you send the crude approximation of your signal (image in this
case) first, and then if you have bandwidth/time/money/patience you show
more detail. A good example is he

https://blog.codinghorror.com/content/images/
uploads/2005/12/6a0120a85dcdae970b0128776fcadb970c-pi.gif

You could think of this as using very low bandwidth aka low bitrate
connection in the beginning (sending just few 'bits' of the image), and
then increasing the number of sent bits per unit time to get more detail.

Ed was talking about the phone companies using adaptive audio bitrate,
which is how the phone company manages their limited aggregate cell tower
bandwidth. They basically can serve small number of customers at high
bitrate that gives very good sound quality. If, however, they get a lot
of cellphones trying to use an oversubscribed tower, they run out of
bandwidth. They COULD drop the call (drop from 100% to nothing at all, as
you say), but the customers tend to complain loudly about that.

Instead, the phone company came up with a brilliant idea: they switch
everyone to a low, crappy bitrate, so they can handle a lot of cellphones
at lower quality. It's much harder for the customers to quantify their
complaints now ("maybe momma is just mumbling"). Geniuses.

Przemek Klosowski wrote on 7/17/2016 9:26 AM:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:17:48 -0400, BPVeW›„«¸ï¼*ｉｇｈｔｙ ¸Ž ï¼·ï½�ｎｎï½�ｂｅ«·
›„fZSSO wrote:


Digital cellphone system is almost like digital TV. You either get it
100% or you don't get it at all, because the signals are all in ones and
zeros.

That ain't right---you can see how it really works with progressive GIFs.
Basically, you send the crude approximation of your signal (image in this
case) first, and then if you have bandwidth/time/money/patience you show
more detail. A good example is he

https://blog.codinghorror.com/content/images/
uploads/2005/12/6a0120a85dcdae970b0128776fcadb970c-pi.gif

You could think of this as using very low bandwidth aka low bitrate
connection in the beginning (sending just few 'bits' of the image), and
then increasing the number of sent bits per unit time to get more detail.

Ed was talking about the phone companies using adaptive audio bitrate,
which is how the phone company manages their limited aggregate cell tower
bandwidth. They basically can serve small number of customers at high
bitrate that gives very good sound quality. If, however, they get a lot
of cellphones trying to use an oversubscribed tower, they run out of
bandwidth. They COULD drop the call (drop from 100% to nothing at all, as
you say), but the customers tend to complain loudly about that.

Instead, the phone company came up with a brilliant idea: they switch
everyone to a low, crappy bitrate, so they can handle a lot of cellphones
at lower quality. It's much harder for the customers to quantify their
complaints now ("maybe momma is just mumbling"). Geniuses.


You are talking about "digitizing" voice or video.

I am talking about the "transmission mode" of analogue cellphone and
digital cellphone, and the equivalent technology of digital TV and
analogue TV.

Canada has phased out analogue TV broadcast a few years ago. All TV
broadcast over the airwaves are now digital in Canada.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_terrestrial_television_in_Canada


It is true that when you are transmitting in digital form, the signals
are in ones and zeros, so that you either get it clearly or you don't
get it at all.

Analog Versus Digital TV: What's the Difference?
http://www.quepublishing.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1245329&seqNum=2
//
How Digital Television Works

DTV is more advanced than the older analog technology. Unlike analog
television, which uses a continuously variable signal, a digital
broadcast converts the programming into a stream of binary on/off
bits€”sequences of 0s and 1s. This is the same way that computers store
information in data files; each bit represents a small part of the
picture, and all the bits combine to reproduce the original picture.

The primary advantage of digital broadcasting is that these binary bits
recombine to reproduce an exact copy of the original material. The
picture and sound received from a digital transmission are always
identical to the original source.

Even better, over-the-air digital signals dont weaken over distance, as
analog signals do. As long as the signal can be received, the picture is
perfect, with no degradation or ghosting. Because digital signals are
composed of binary bits, a 1 is always a 1, and a 0 is always a 0. There
is no fuzziness or snow in the picture, no ghosts caused by interference.

In addition, digital is a more efficient technology. A digital
transmission requires less bandwidth than does a similar analog
broadcast; this lets local television stations broadcast two, three, or
even four digital channels in the space of a single analog channel. This
€œmulticasting€� technology means youll receive more variety in
programming from your local stations€”all delivered with superior digital
quality.
\\

Wrong. The case is completely sealed and polished.
The Epoxy or other seals the glass to the base.

These are HTC. My 3rd G4. 2 and 3rd are sealed. Only has two
plug in slots on the side for sticks. One of which is needed to work
correctly. Nominal storage locally on the phone.

I wanted to take it to the shop and take a 4 pounder to it but the urge
with a bad Li in it - stopped me.

My first Generation HTC G4 could be taken apart. The next two can't.


On 7/15/2016 7:40 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 19:09:10 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Have you a new phone yet ? I just trashed my second G4 phone and have
a third. Get a new battery - battery was getting so hot it was hard to
hold the phone in your hand... Li battery dies at 65% charge level.
Short...

Can't change batteries. Phone is sealed so you can't change squat but
the card in the side. Stays on or turns on when commanded...


Any of those phones can be opened and the batteries replaced. Just not
as simple as sliding off a cover or removing a few screws
No screws. No screws. No cut/crease/dimpple or crap that might allow
it. The back is a solid C shell that glues on to the front glass/key.
Nothing allows it to come apart. AT&T agreed and I kept the phone.

Ever see the shows on TV where they strip the phone and smash it ? Now
it is good luck with the composite body around tempered glass. One has
to smash it. No battery out for 2 hours...

No hiding, no calling friends to meet you at the bridge to prevent the
Red coats from crossing.

They already support anarchy in the streets and approve of it -
Now for Marshall law and house to house.

The voice audio on telephones and now cell phones is based on a paper
done in the 20's or 30's. It was for copper stranded telephone lines
that looked like a drying room for pasta. Now with Movie and Music
audio streaming, and they truncate the upper and lower frequencies for
voice many of us can't use the harmonics or hear many voices. Women
voices are often pushing the top end and men with tobacco in the jaw
push the bottom end - making voice chopped and trashed.

The cell phone hits a tower and goes VOIP until it comes out the other
end to another tower. Rarely does it tower to tower or same tower
unless in a small area and with limited cells.

Martin

On 7/15/2016 12:53 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:17:48 -0400, BPVeW???????? ? ?????????fZSSO
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote on 7/15/2016 12:24 PM:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:54:13 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:40:47 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

Here's one for the digital experts: I do a lot of interviews in which
the other party is on a cell phone, and I think I've noticed a
difference over time in how they work.

If the call is conducted at a busy time of day, and there are clear
signs of bandwidth becoming limited, it used to be that there would be a
corresponding number of dropouts in the conversation. Lately (and I call
mostly the Chicago and Los Angeles areas) I've detected something
different: it sounds like they're just reducing the audio bitrate. It
starts to sound like it's coming from a cheap microphone.

Does anyone know?

I don't, but cruddy audio + dropouts is worse than just cruddy audio, so
there'd certainly be pressure on the equipment manufacturers to make the
change.

Yeah, well, the cruddy audio is something I've just noticed over the
past year. The dropouts have been going on for years.

Chicago, particularly, seems to have bandwidth problems on both
landlines and cell systems. I try to time my calls for early morning.
If I do, the audio is perfectly clear.

It's gotten to be a problem for my transcribing service. Not knowing
our jargon, they have a really hard time with it when it gets muddy.

In the beginning cellphones were all analogue. The sound quality can
vary due to distance between the cellphone and the cellphone tower.

Today cellphones have almost all gone digital. You cannot buy an
analogue cellphone anymore and even if you still have an analogue
cellphone you might not be able to find a service provide which still
runs the old analogue cellphone systems.

Digital cellphone system is almost like digital TV. You either get it
100% or you don't get it at all, because the signals are all in ones and
zeros.

The difference in sound quality is most likely due use of "Voice over
IP" (people dialing you using Skype or other WiFi connection Apps to
avoid airtime charges), or use of low quality Bluetooth headset when
talking to you (most cellphones have built-in Bluetooth technology).




I found this the other day..here is a perfect time to post it...

http://allnewspipeline.com/SOP_303_G...ecret_Plan.php


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

I love HD TV myself. If a storm comes I can start seeing digital
blocks start to drop out and screen freezes... It comes back or not.

Martin - been HD since the first time they tried to push it. It was
720x720. Old tech now. But still HD.

Martin

On 7/17/2016 9:00 PM, ZwMLx›„«¸ï¼*ｉｇｈｔｙ ¸Ž ï¼·ï½�ｎｎï½�ｂｅ«·›„MRRfv wrote:
Przemek Klosowski wrote on 7/17/2016 9:26 AM:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:17:48 -0400, BPVeW›„«¸ï¼*ｉｇｈｔｙ ¸Ž ï¼·ï½�ｎｎï½�ｂｅ«·
›„fZSSO wrote:


Digital cellphone system is almost like digital TV. You either get it
100% or you don't get it at all, because the signals are all in ones and
zeros.

That ain't right---you can see how it really works with progressive GIFs.
Basically, you send the crude approximation of your signal (image in this
case) first, and then if you have bandwidth/time/money/patience you show
more detail. A good example is he

https://blog.codinghorror.com/content/images/
uploads/2005/12/6a0120a85dcdae970b0128776fcadb970c-pi.gif

You could think of this as using very low bandwidth aka low bitrate
connection in the beginning (sending just few 'bits' of the image), and
then increasing the number of sent bits per unit time to get more detail.

Ed was talking about the phone companies using adaptive audio bitrate,
which is how the phone company manages their limited aggregate cell tower
bandwidth. They basically can serve small number of customers at high
bitrate that gives very good sound quality. If, however, they get a lot
of cellphones trying to use an oversubscribed tower, they run out of
bandwidth. They COULD drop the call (drop from 100% to nothing at all, as
you say), but the customers tend to complain loudly about that.

Instead, the phone company came up with a brilliant idea: they switch
everyone to a low, crappy bitrate, so they can handle a lot of cellphones
at lower quality. It's much harder for the customers to quantify their
complaints now ("maybe momma is just mumbling"). Geniuses.


You are talking about "digitizing" voice or video.

I am talking about the "transmission mode" of analogue cellphone and
digital cellphone, and the equivalent technology of digital TV and
analogue TV.

Canada has phased out analogue TV broadcast a few years ago. All TV
broadcast over the airwaves are now digital in Canada.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_terrestrial_television_in_Canada


It is true that when you are transmitting in digital form, the signals
are in ones and zeros, so that you either get it clearly or you don't
get it at all.

Analog Versus Digital TV: What's the Difference?
http://www.quepublishing.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1245329&seqNum=2
//
How Digital Television Works

DTV is more advanced than the older analog technology. Unlike analog
television, which uses a continuously variable signal, a digital
broadcast converts the programming into a stream of binary on/off
bits€”sequences of 0s and 1s. This is the same way that computers store
information in data files; each bit represents a small part of the
picture, and all the bits combine to reproduce the original picture.

The primary advantage of digital broadcasting is that these binary bits
recombine to reproduce an exact copy of the original material. The
picture and sound received from a digital transmission are always
identical to the original source.

Even better, over-the-air digital signals dont weaken over distance, as
analog signals do. As long as the signal can be received, the picture is
perfect, with no degradation or ghosting. Because digital signals are
composed of binary bits, a 1 is always a 1, and a 0 is always a 0. There
is no fuzziness or snow in the picture, no ghosts caused by interference.

In addition, digital is a more efficient technology. A digital
transmission requires less bandwidth than does a similar analog
broadcast; this lets local television stations broadcast two, three, or
even four digital channels in the space of a single analog channel. This
€œmulticasting€� technology means youll receive more variety in
programming from your local stations€”all delivered with superior digital
quality.
\\