Is 4kHz too high a beeper frequency?

Ricky C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:bed1f85c-2740-4270-8f17-9fcb09718599@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 4:23:07 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Ricky C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:9dcba93e-7cd7-4882-8119-5520edd126f2@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 3:15:19 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Ricky C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:90e0a1b0-a24a-42ac-a791-913ab89efde5@googlegroups.com:

The one great feature of a land line is the voice quality.
No cell phone can compare.

yer nuts.

POTS = 300 to 3400 Hz MAX

Cell phone, locally is like 200 to 20,000 Hz.

The cell connection band, however, is the same as POTS
because we
need to talk to dopey copper connected dolts occasionally. So
they handcuffed it to the same 300 to 3400 Hz. Not even a
function of the phones so much as the cell nodes.

And ANY music over the cell is better than ANY wired phone.
Because
unlike voice calls, streamed media gets buffered and the cell
plays back FOOL spectrum audio.

Nope, not even close. Cell phones have to conserve network
band width.

Nope. Cell phones stream fucking movies and live porn. They
are
packet streaming motherfuckers, and the audio cutoff on a phone
call is deliberate but not due to any network loading.

Cell phones making standard phone calls have the audio
bandwidth
limited to MATCH that of POTS systems, and it has nothing to do
with conservation of bandwidth.

There is ZERO incentive to limit audio bandwidth to that of POTS,
but I'm not talking about bandwidth. I'm talking about quality of
reproduction due to the voice compression. It's not called "audio
compression" because it is tailored to voice. The highest rate of
compressed voice I'm aware of is 32 kbps. While 56/64 kbps is
uLaw/Alaw *is* audio compression and not voice compression.

There is also 24, 16 kbps compression and even lower rates which
are not often used.

Why do they use this? Because they pay each other for all used
bandwidth when you aren't in range of your carrier's towers
(roaming) and you don't pay for voice. So they aren't paying for
uncompressed voice if they don't have to. Besides, all this came
about when you did pay for each minute and it's never been
dismantled.


They use voice compression that is much less than 56 kbps
and sounds it very much.

No. Old shitty phones did dumb things like that.

It's not the phone, it's the protocol.

Yeah. And that is QPSK.

Then there are bit errors and drop outs.

Funny, I DL 2.5GB files at 1.5MB/s on a rgular basis. They are
bit
for bit "perfect calls".

Yes, and you pay for every MB of data. What's your data cost?


Audio "phone calls" have little glitches if either phone has a
VOX
or half duplex thing bouncing around. If both phones are newer
there is no such dropouts, unless you are deep inside a building.

Or pretty much anywhere in a car... remember the "mobile" part of
mobile phone? Multipath is a bitch in the city and when more
distant there's fading because of terrain. These are radios, not
wires. Quality varies hugely and it sucks.

Maybe for you. I have had good cell service for half a decade.

Like digital TV if our connection isn't great the bit errors
show
up very quickly.

Digital TV here is all or none. The tuner either gives you a
perfect full picture and sound, or it blanks the entire thing and
tells you no signal or weak signal. That is not about bandwidth
though. That is about reflections and sgnal strength, etc.

You are talking about the digital "cliff" but are over emphasizing
it. It's not a perfect 1/0 thing.

No. It depends on the service and the tuner. Some are set up so
that if there is not a full signal and able to deliver the full
frame, it blanks it (blue actaully).

There is a grey area with bits
compromising the quality of the picture.

Nope. And I worked at GI when they first did the entire HDTV
consortium stuff. There is (was) DigiCypher I and II. But that was
in the 480 line NTSC days. They showed artifacts and still threw up
the frame. Cable channels still do it. The HDTV broadcast is
different. Most tuners are all or none, and they do not show frames
with artifacts. They declare the signal weak and will not tune the
channel.

I know, one place I
lived was on the edge of that cliff and getting off the air TV was
a bitch. Daily variations in signal would push the image to bit
drops which were not at all like the gentle snow of analog TV.

Sounds like you had an antenna aiming problem. The transmitter
towers are stationary. Operator error.

Cells are fed from nearby. Digital TV can be from a
transmitter 40
miles away.

That's irrelevant.

Not in any way.

Cell is all about frequency reuse, so they
have to limit the power transmitted so they don't interfere with
the tower a couple of cells away using the same frequencies.

No. The power is limited by the system design, not because they
were worried about walking on the next cell. They bounce around on
the frequencies they use. Hippity hop.

I know you won't accept any of this, but that's they way cell
phones are over more than half the country.

Whatever. Maybe you have not been keeping up. because I do
not
see the issues you speak of, even my Obama phone works well.

You cell voice quality is always perfect??? No, I don't see that.

*You* don't "see" *MY* cell. There are drop outs but in many cases
it is because the other person flooded the thing with overmodulated
audio. LOUD talking halts my feed of voice on occasion. There are a
few things happening. They do not want it so sensitive that wind
noise is a problem. There is likely compression right off the mic.

> I guess you don't go on trips.

Don't be presumptuous. Presumptuous people are putzes.

But you did talk about using your
phone "deep inside buildings" so you must have seen these problems
at some point.

Wow. Your analytical acumen hovers near zero on this. While I
watched years of the technology improve over the years to a very nice
current position. What happened to you might extend past the actual
issue your phone and provider might have.

If you have a great
connection to your tower and it's not morning or evening rush
hour or some time between, you might get a good connection.
Other places and at the congested times voice quality sucks.

Sounds like your local cell system sucks. You in Timbuktu?

Yes, about 70 miles from Wash DC in central VA or 50 miles away in
MD or 70 miles away in PA.

I lived in Great Falls for three years (6 years ago)and had no
problems and that was before I had my first smart phone.

Like many things, they try harder in
the densely populated areas and much less so an hour away.

"they try harder"?

Bottom line is for the most part voice compression greatly impacts
audio quality and cell phones are never any better than landlines.

Land lines in many areas are covered by the cable company and does
not even travel over POTS. They are ALL at 300 to 3400 Hz though.
Does not matter that there is no break up, the audio just sucks for
anything other than basic voice.

64 kbps uLaw or Alaw is completely adequate for voice while music
sucks because of the filtering above 3.4 kHz. Cell phones do the
same filtering (what's the point when a landline is on the other
end) and voice compression can make it hard to even make it sound
like music depending on the bit rate in use.

I've given you the facts.

No, you did not. You barked out Ricky C shit from your upper anus.

> Accept or not.

When you iterate one, I will recognize it. That's ULaw. Usenet.

Please don't keep
ignoring them.

Patronizing fucktard. Please don't write your repsonses in such a
Trumpesquian retarded manner.

A 3.4 KHz cutoff won't pass 1.2 MB/s feeds yet I get them, so your
version of operation is flawed.

 

[Ricky C]

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 4:19:05 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Ricky C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:bed1f85c-2740-
4270-8f17-9fcb09718599@googlegroups.com:


There is ZERO incentive to limit audio bandwidth to that of POTS,

Not true. Think about back when they started it all. Today's data
rate on a stream from the net through the cell tower to your phone is
a today thing. That can be megabytes/s and is. That stream,
however, is a file write operation. Not full duplex low audio grade
phone conversation. Even your zoom or skype links are far better
audio than a standard audio phone call.

Audio is slow rate and low bandwidth requisite thing.

Yes, but you seem to be agreeing with me.

But still, even in the start, they had to clamp it to POTS rates
because MODEM, FAX, and such ARE also tied to that because 'baud
rate' is tied to it. Because they did not even have ISDN digital
switch houses in everywhere yet.

You idea of "having to clamp it" is not logical although I'm not clear on what the "it" is. If it is mobile, the POTS audio bandwidth was a requirement because it's needed for human speech. The initial cell phone service was analog with digital control. You could pick it up with a radio receiver. There was no requirement to handle FAX or MODEM because they were not regulated the same as POTS.

So if you look up the number, it is the same as POTS. You tell me
why, smartass.

What number??? Try explaining what you are talking about???

It ain't 'compression', it is a modulation schema. Cell
communcation is packetized so you are mixing technologies. They
use QPSK modulation for spectral efficiency. But yes, some phone
brands and some older models compressed their audio stream and then
sent it, and delays and clicks and pops, etc. crop up and rop outs.
They have improved all that greatly. So yeah, they still compress,
but it is better than before. So maybe NOW they are doing better
audio band limits, but it is still stated as 300 to 3400 in the
specs.

You are going off the reservation. This has nothing to do with carrier modulation.

The data from the ADC receiving your voice around 100 kbps is compressed for all digital telecoms. The phone company uses uLaw or Alaw to compress 13 bits down to 8 bits or 64 kbps. Cell phone carriers initially wanted to preserve bandwidth so they could get more phone calls on the same number of towers. So they used voice compression that could run as low as 12 kbps or maybe 8, but I never heard an 8 kbps stream I would tolerate. But in rush hour cell congestion it's better to give a crappy call than no call.

With time the data capacity of networks increased and I'm sure they use 12 kbps a lot less than before, but to the best of my knowledge they don't tie up 64 kbps when there is little need.

There is zero need to increase the bandwidth because the phone at the other end is still very likely to be a land line with the same frequency limit they've always had. Then there is the issue of part of the call path being routed through the phone system which is 100% uLaw in the US. You ain't gettin' no better frequency response than it's been for a long time.

I already wrote why I think they did it, but did it they did.

There is zero incentive for you to constantly attack me.

I reread my post you are replying to and I don't see a single thing anyone would call an "attack".

--

Rick C.

-+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ricky C]

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 4:25:35 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Ricky C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:bed1f85c-2740-
4270-8f17-9fcb09718599@googlegroups.com:


Yes, and you pay for every MB of data.

Nope. Unlimited. Roaming? WTF is roaming? Ha!

What's your data cost?

See above. Part of the plan. phone is internet hotspot for my
laptop and iPad no matter where I am too.

It is a modern world. I expect to have a video phone on my forearm
and to change my name to Dick Tracy soon.

Who is your provider? I'd like to sign up for an unlimited data plan. Are you paying through the nose? I pay about $30 a month and $10 per GB. Most people have plans where they pay for the data as a cap and pay though the nose if they go over it. That way they pay for data they aren't using.

I'd like to check out your plan. Who is it with and how much?

--

Rick C.

-+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

Ricky C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:e9c66f7a-812a-
4c07-bc21-a6a92ccdd30d@googlegroups.com:

> I pay about $30 a month and $10 per GB.

$30 a month unlimited.

Not the carrier I have, but I see "Spectrum" ads on TV all the time
that offer cheap unlimited plans.

 

[Ricky C]

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 5:11:52 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Ricky C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:bed1f85c-2740-4270-8f17-9fcb09718599@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 4:23:07 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Ricky C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:9dcba93e-7cd7-4882-8119-5520edd126f2@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 3:15:19 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Ricky C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:90e0a1b0-a24a-42ac-a791-913ab89efde5@googlegroups.com:

The one great feature of a land line is the voice quality.
No cell phone can compare.

yer nuts.

POTS = 300 to 3400 Hz MAX

Cell phone, locally is like 200 to 20,000 Hz.

The cell connection band, however, is the same as POTS
because we
need to talk to dopey copper connected dolts occasionally. So
they handcuffed it to the same 300 to 3400 Hz. Not even a
function of the phones so much as the cell nodes.

And ANY music over the cell is better than ANY wired phone.
Because
unlike voice calls, streamed media gets buffered and the cell
plays back FOOL spectrum audio.

Nope, not even close. Cell phones have to conserve network
band width.

Nope. Cell phones stream fucking movies and live porn. They
are
packet streaming motherfuckers, and the audio cutoff on a phone
call is deliberate but not due to any network loading.

Cell phones making standard phone calls have the audio
bandwidth
limited to MATCH that of POTS systems, and it has nothing to do
with conservation of bandwidth.

There is ZERO incentive to limit audio bandwidth to that of POTS,
but I'm not talking about bandwidth. I'm talking about quality of
reproduction due to the voice compression. It's not called "audio
compression" because it is tailored to voice. The highest rate of
compressed voice I'm aware of is 32 kbps. While 56/64 kbps is
uLaw/Alaw *is* audio compression and not voice compression.

There is also 24, 16 kbps compression and even lower rates which
are not often used.

Why do they use this? Because they pay each other for all used
bandwidth when you aren't in range of your carrier's towers
(roaming) and you don't pay for voice. So they aren't paying for
uncompressed voice if they don't have to. Besides, all this came
about when you did pay for each minute and it's never been
dismantled.


They use voice compression that is much less than 56 kbps
and sounds it very much.

No. Old shitty phones did dumb things like that.

It's not the phone, it's the protocol.

Yeah. And that is QPSK.

QPSK is the modulation. It has nothing to do with voice compression.

Then there are bit errors and drop outs.

Funny, I DL 2.5GB files at 1.5MB/s on a rgular basis. They are
bit
for bit "perfect calls".

Yes, and you pay for every MB of data. What's your data cost?


Audio "phone calls" have little glitches if either phone has a
VOX
or half duplex thing bouncing around. If both phones are newer
there is no such dropouts, unless you are deep inside a building.

Or pretty much anywhere in a car... remember the "mobile" part of
mobile phone? Multipath is a bitch in the city and when more
distant there's fading because of terrain. These are radios, not
wires. Quality varies hugely and it sucks.

Maybe for you. I have had good cell service for half a decade.

Ok, if your mom lives next to the cell tower and you never leave the basement, great for you.

Like digital TV if our connection isn't great the bit errors
show
up very quickly.

Digital TV here is all or none. The tuner either gives you a
perfect full picture and sound, or it blanks the entire thing and
tells you no signal or weak signal. That is not about bandwidth
though. That is about reflections and sgnal strength, etc.

You are talking about the digital "cliff" but are over emphasizing
it. It's not a perfect 1/0 thing.

No. It depends on the service and the tuner. Some are set up so
that if there is not a full signal and able to deliver the full
frame, it blanks it (blue actaully).

"No" what??? When you say "service" I assume you mean signal strength. Yes, of course it does. That's the point. As the signal strength drops bit errors happen which are corrected 100% by the encoding. As more errors happen some can't be corrected and they corrupt image. As more errors come in the image can't be recreated at all. This happens over a much more narrow range of signal strength than with analog modulation which simply introduces more and more snow until finally the snow is more pronounced than the sync signal and the image rolls. But few people can tolerate the image snow long before it rolls.

So the much less gradual image disruption and loss with digital signals is called the digital cliff. But it's not a binary perfect or none situation.

There is a grey area with bits
compromising the quality of the picture.

Nope. And I worked at GI when they first did the entire HDTV
consortium stuff. There is (was) DigiCypher I and II. But that was
in the 480 line NTSC days. They showed artifacts and still threw up
the frame. Cable channels still do it. The HDTV broadcast is
different. Most tuners are all or none, and they do not show frames
with artifacts. They declare the signal weak and will not tune the
channel.

You don't even have to be working to use a digital TV which works exactly as I described. Few people ever see this because not very many bother with terrestrial TV reception.

I know, one place I
lived was on the edge of that cliff and getting off the air TV was
a bitch. Daily variations in signal would push the image to bit
drops which were not at all like the gentle snow of analog TV.

Sounds like you had an antenna aiming problem. The transmitter
towers are stationary. Operator error.

Sounds like you don't have a clue about my antenna. Propagation conditions vary. Anyone with ANY experience even just watching a terrestrial TV signal knows that. It requires zero knowledge of electronics.

Cells are fed from nearby. Digital TV can be from a
transmitter 40
miles away.

That's irrelevant.

Not in any way.

Cell is all about frequency reuse, so they
have to limit the power transmitted so they don't interfere with
the tower a couple of cells away using the same frequencies.

No. The power is limited by the system design, not because they
were worried about walking on the next cell. They bounce around on
the frequencies they use. Hippity hop.

They don't interfere with the next cell. That would not be a workable system. You have to be able to hand a call to the next cell. It is cells two or three cells over that use the same frequencies.

The tower has some maximum transmitting power but seldom uses that. Just like the receiver they control the power levels to make sure they get a connection without sending more power than needed to reduce the noise in the system.

I realize you don't have much knowledge about this topic. That's ok. Not many people do really.

I know you won't accept any of this, but that's they way cell
phones are over more than half the country.

Whatever. Maybe you have not been keeping up. because I do
not
see the issues you speak of, even my Obama phone works well.

You cell voice quality is always perfect??? No, I don't see that.

*You* don't "see" *MY* cell. There are drop outs but in many cases
it is because the other person flooded the thing with overmodulated
audio. LOUD talking halts my feed of voice on occasion. There are a
few things happening. They do not want it so sensitive that wind
noise is a problem. There is likely compression right off the mic.

I guess you don't go on trips.

Don't be presumptuous. Presumptuous people are putzes.

If you left your magic castle where cell phones are perfect you would find plenty of places where your cell will drop out or not work at all. There used to be a spot on Rt 15 near the VA side of the Potomac river that would drop every time I drove through. They finally added a tower somewhere that covered this better. I've seen stretches along major highways in southwestern VA with zero reception. Same in Tennessee and other rural areas. It will be decades if they ever cover the entire US because they are too busy spending money on 5G which is about competing with cable companies rather than providing phone service.

But you did talk about using your
phone "deep inside buildings" so you must have seen these problems
at some point.

Wow. Your analytical acumen hovers near zero on this. While I
watched years of the technology improve over the years to a very nice
current position. What happened to you might extend past the actual
issue your phone and provider might have.

If you have a great
connection to your tower and it's not morning or evening rush
hour or some time between, you might get a good connection.
Other places and at the congested times voice quality sucks.

Sounds like your local cell system sucks. You in Timbuktu?

Yes, about 70 miles from Wash DC in central VA or 50 miles away in
MD or 70 miles away in PA.

I lived in Great Falls for three years (6 years ago)and had no
problems and that was before I had my first smart phone.

Great Falls is right next to the DC beltway and has the highest per capita income of nearly anywhere around DC. Of course they are going to cover that area!! That's where the first and most expensive cell phones are!!!!

Like many things, they try harder in
the densely populated areas and much less so an hour away.

"they try harder"?

Bottom line is for the most part voice compression greatly impacts
audio quality and cell phones are never any better than landlines.

Land lines in many areas are covered by the cable company and does
not even travel over POTS. They are ALL at 300 to 3400 Hz though.
Does not matter that there is no break up, the audio just sucks for
anything other than basic voice.

64 kbps uLaw or Alaw is completely adequate for voice while music
sucks because of the filtering above 3.4 kHz. Cell phones do the
same filtering (what's the point when a landline is on the other
end) and voice compression can make it hard to even make it sound
like music depending on the bit rate in use.

I've given you the facts.

No, you did not. You barked out Ricky C shit from your upper anus.

Accept or not.

When you iterate one, I will recognize it. That's ULaw. Usenet.

What's ULaw? That's the name of a University of Law. The compression standard is actually Îź-law but I typically don't type the mu because it is awkward.

Please don't keep
ignoring them.

Patronizing fucktard. Please don't write your repsonses in such a
Trumpesquian retarded manner.

A 3.4 KHz cutoff won't pass 1.2 MB/s feeds yet I get them, so your
version of operation is flawed.

Ok, I've seen enough of your self appointed ignorance. Bye.

--

Rick C.

-+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[boB]

On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 21:11:46 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Ricky C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:bed1f85c-2740-4270-8f17-9fcb09718599@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 4:23:07 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Ricky C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:9dcba93e-7cd7-4882-8119-5520edd126f2@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 3:15:19 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Ricky C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:90e0a1b0-a24a-42ac-a791-913ab89efde5@googlegroups.com:

The one great feature of a land line is the voice quality.
No cell phone can compare.

yer nuts.

POTS = 300 to 3400 Hz MAX

Cell phone, locally is like 200 to 20,000 Hz.

The cell connection band, however, is the same as POTS
because we
need to talk to dopey copper connected dolts occasionally. So
they handcuffed it to the same 300 to 3400 Hz. Not even a
function of the phones so much as the cell nodes.

And ANY music over the cell is better than ANY wired phone.
Because
unlike voice calls, streamed media gets buffered and the cell
plays back FOOL spectrum audio.

Nope, not even close. Cell phones have to conserve network
band width.

Nope. Cell phones stream fucking movies and live porn. They
are
packet streaming motherfuckers, and the audio cutoff on a phone
call is deliberate but not due to any network loading.

Cell phones making standard phone calls have the audio
bandwidth
limited to MATCH that of POTS systems, and it has nothing to do
with conservation of bandwidth.

There is ZERO incentive to limit audio bandwidth to that of POTS,
but I'm not talking about bandwidth. I'm talking about quality of
reproduction due to the voice compression. It's not called "audio
compression" because it is tailored to voice. The highest rate of
compressed voice I'm aware of is 32 kbps. While 56/64 kbps is
uLaw/Alaw *is* audio compression and not voice compression.

There is also 24, 16 kbps compression and even lower rates which
are not often used.

Why do they use this? Because they pay each other for all used
bandwidth when you aren't in range of your carrier's towers
(roaming) and you don't pay for voice. So they aren't paying for
uncompressed voice if they don't have to. Besides, all this came
about when you did pay for each minute and it's never been
dismantled.


They use voice compression that is much less than 56 kbps
and sounds it very much.

No. Old shitty phones did dumb things like that.

It's not the phone, it's the protocol.

Yeah. And that is QPSK.


Then there are bit errors and drop outs.

Funny, I DL 2.5GB files at 1.5MB/s on a rgular basis. They are
bit
for bit "perfect calls".

Yes, and you pay for every MB of data. What's your data cost?


Audio "phone calls" have little glitches if either phone has a
VOX
or half duplex thing bouncing around. If both phones are newer
there is no such dropouts, unless you are deep inside a building.

Or pretty much anywhere in a car... remember the "mobile" part of
mobile phone? Multipath is a bitch in the city and when more
distant there's fading because of terrain. These are radios, not
wires. Quality varies hugely and it sucks.

Maybe for you. I have had good cell service for half a decade.

Like digital TV if our connection isn't great the bit errors
show
up very quickly.

Digital TV here is all or none. The tuner either gives you a
perfect full picture and sound, or it blanks the entire thing and
tells you no signal or weak signal. That is not about bandwidth
though. That is about reflections and sgnal strength, etc.

You are talking about the digital "cliff" but are over emphasizing
it. It's not a perfect 1/0 thing.

No. It depends on the service and the tuner. Some are set up so
that if there is not a full signal and able to deliver the full
frame, it blanks it (blue actaully).


There is a grey area with bits
compromising the quality of the picture.

Nope. And I worked at GI when they first did the entire HDTV
consortium stuff. There is (was) DigiCypher I and II. But that was
in the 480 line NTSC days. They showed artifacts and still threw up
the frame. Cable channels still do it. The HDTV broadcast is
different. Most tuners are all or none, and they do not show frames
with artifacts. They declare the signal weak and will not tune the
channel.

I know, one place I
lived was on the edge of that cliff and getting off the air TV was
a bitch. Daily variations in signal would push the image to bit
drops which were not at all like the gentle snow of analog TV.

Sounds like you had an antenna aiming problem. The transmitter
towers are stationary. Operator error.

Cells are fed from nearby. Digital TV can be from a
transmitter 40
miles away.

That's irrelevant.

Not in any way.

Cell is all about frequency reuse, so they
have to limit the power transmitted so they don't interfere with
the tower a couple of cells away using the same frequencies.

No. The power is limited by the system design, not because they
were worried about walking on the next cell. They bounce around on
the frequencies they use. Hippity hop.

I know you won't accept any of this, but that's they way cell
phones are over more than half the country.

Whatever. Maybe you have not been keeping up. because I do
not
see the issues you speak of, even my Obama phone works well.

You cell voice quality is always perfect??? No, I don't see that.

*You* don't "see" *MY* cell. There are drop outs but in many cases
it is because the other person flooded the thing with overmodulated
audio. LOUD talking halts my feed of voice on occasion. There are a
few things happening. They do not want it so sensitive that wind
noise is a problem. There is likely compression right off the mic.

I guess you don't go on trips.

Don't be presumptuous. Presumptuous people are putzes.

But you did talk about using your
phone "deep inside buildings" so you must have seen these problems
at some point.

Wow. Your analytical acumen hovers near zero on this. While I
watched years of the technology improve over the years to a very nice
current position. What happened to you might extend past the actual
issue your phone and provider might have.

If you have a great
connection to your tower and it's not morning or evening rush
hour or some time between, you might get a good connection.
Other places and at the congested times voice quality sucks.

Sounds like your local cell system sucks. You in Timbuktu?

Yes, about 70 miles from Wash DC in central VA or 50 miles away in
MD or 70 miles away in PA.

I lived in Great Falls for three years (6 years ago)and had no
problems and that was before I had my first smart phone.

Like many things, they try harder in
the densely populated areas and much less so an hour away.

"they try harder"?

Bottom line is for the most part voice compression greatly impacts
audio quality and cell phones are never any better than landlines.

Land lines in many areas are covered by the cable company and does
not even travel over POTS. They are ALL at 300 to 3400 Hz though.
Does not matter that there is no break up, the audio just sucks for
anything other than basic voice.

64 kbps uLaw or Alaw is completely adequate for voice while music
sucks because of the filtering above 3.4 kHz. Cell phones do the
same filtering (what's the point when a landline is on the other
end) and voice compression can make it hard to even make it sound
like music depending on the bit rate in use.

I've given you the facts.

No, you did not. You barked out Ricky C shit from your upper anus.

Accept or not.

When you iterate one, I will recognize it. That's ULaw. Usenet.

Please don't keep
ignoring them.

Patronizing fucktard. Please don't write your repsonses in such a
Trumpesquian retarded manner.

A 3.4 KHz cutoff won't pass 1.2 MB/s feeds yet I get them, so your
version of operation is flawed.

I'm sure that the cell phone call itself can be high audio bandwidth
but I have not checked or heard any specds about that in years.

Unless it has changed in recent years, I always thought of the data
connection and the cell phone call as separate entities.

Of course the data connection is hi fidelity. I play Youtube and
streaming audio in the car a lot and it's great to finally be able to
have that available now.
Not so much the phone call quality but maybe it's done differently now
?

As for unlimited data, I have that with my plan. It's Comcast/Xfinity
but uses Verizon data basically as I remember.

 

[Ricky C]

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 4:26:13 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Ricky C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:bed1f85c-2740-4270-8f17-9fcb09718599@googlegroups.com:

Or pretty much anywhere in a car... remember the "mobile" part of
mobile phone? Multipath is a bitch in the city and when more
distant there's fading because of terrain. These are radios, not
wires. Quality varies hugely and it sucks.


You are on a shitty system. Where you at, Timbuktu?

I'm in one of the counties that has less than 100 COVID-19 cases. That's part of the deal. Very little disease and crappy cell phone coverage.

Wait! There's the connection!!! Cell phones cause COVID-19!!!!! Just check. I bet nearly every COVID-19 victim has a cell phone... even in places like India and Africa.

I guess we were lucky we got away with it for so long...

--

Rick C.

-++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

Ricky C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:b8a35338-aa6b-412d-9801-47b623807968@googlegroups.com:

As the signal strength drops bit errors happen which are
corrected 100% by the encoding. As more errors happen some
can't be corrected and they corrupt image. As more errors come
in the image can't be recreated at all.

I know how it works. I told you I was working at General
Instrument when it was being engineered and adopted. If you do not
know what a bitblt is, you should not attempt to craft pontification
any further.
If you do not know how an HDTV signal is encoded (and you obviously
do not), you should stop.

Bit errors in the transmission can cause total drop out. That is
where the "bit error rate" comes in. They do not put up corrupt
frames, so you will not see frames containing artifacts. As I stated
earlier, it is all or none on a per frame basis. Frames failing
decoding get cast aside, not included. There are not frames sporting
visible artifacts. That was standard definition cable TV decoding. A
completely different animal. That is why they can get 12 channels
per 6MHz wide carrier. It is called MCPC. But the HDTV method
differs.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_channel_per_carrier>
MCPC is down the page a bit.

This happens over a much
more narrow range of signal strength than with analog modulation
which simply introduces more and more snow until finally the snow
is more pronounced than the sync signal and the image rolls.

I know how analog television signal transmission works as well.

But
few people can tolerate the image snow long before it rolls.

Try decoding in-band gated sync signals. Ha!

 

Ricky C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:27914f3a-5dfb-4573-b606-f3dafe579aae@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 4:26:13 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Ricky C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:bed1f85c-2740-4270-8f17-9fcb09718599@googlegroups.com:

Or pretty much anywhere in a car... remember the "mobile" part
of mobile phone? Multipath is a bitch in the city and when
more distant there's fading because of terrain. These are
radios, not wires. Quality varies hugely and it sucks.


You are on a shitty system. Where you at, Timbuktu?

I'm in one of the counties that has less than 100 COVID-19 cases.
That's part of the deal. Very little disease and crappy cell
phone coverage.

Wait! There's the connection!!! Cell phones cause COVID-19!!!!!
Just check. I bet nearly every COVID-19 victim has a cell
phone... even in places like India and Africa.

I guess we were lucky we got away with it for so long...

Being farther away, your cell would make more power to do the link
with your node. You would die sooner.

I can still remember this Viet Namese girl assembling boards for
us. She was so tiny, and then she made a baby! Wow. So very tiny.
Anyway, she would get mad if she was ever corrected. I mean real
mad. She was from near those Orange county VietNamese gangs and
such.

So when happy, she would make jokes like (pointing at you) "All
your fault!" in her viet accent. If she was angry, she would say
things like "Fifty dolla' you die uh-lee!" (strong accent)(uh-lee is
early) Letting us know how cheap it would be for her to have us
taken care of.

 

On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 10:53:38 -0700, Winfield Hill wrote:

I'm finishing a design for a small instrument
that will be used by people of all ages, mostly in the health-care
industry. It's got 115 SMT parts, so I've spent extra time struggling
to chose the smallest practical part choices. It has a beeper. The
CUI CSS-0578 is smaller than most, only 5x5mm, but it wants to run at 4
kHz.
Is that going to be hard, or even impossible, to hear for some users?

Have a look at IEC 60601-1-8.

Whether or not your device has to comply with it, there's lots of useful
rationale about how alarm tones and their harmonic content affect
distinguishing/locating them in a noisy room.

PM me if you can't locate a copy - address in the headers works.