Is there a mobile 'phone on the market that gives even reasonable sound
quality.?

I have tested a fairly high-end Apple 'phone and a bottom-of-the-range
Argos 'phone, they both give atrocious sound when heard on a good
quality landline. I have yet to hear a mobile 'phone that didn't sound
so bad that some of the speech was verging on unintelligible, cutting
off the beginnings of words and lapsing into 'drainpipe' noises.

Obviously I can't test the whole range that is on offer, but has anyone
come across a decent one?

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 14:07:54 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

>Is there a mobile 'phone on the market that gives even reasonable sound
>quality.?
>
>I have tested a fairly high-end Apple 'phone and a bottom-of-the-range
>Argos 'phone, they both give atrocious sound when heard on a good
>quality landline. I have yet to hear a mobile 'phone that didn't sound
>so bad that some of the speech was verging on unintelligible, cutting
>off the beginnings of words and lapsing into 'drainpipe' noises.
>
>Obviously I can't test the whole range that is on offer, but has anyone
>come across a decent one?

Is this the phone or the network?

On 22/01/2024 14:07, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> Is there a mobile 'phone on the market that gives even reasonable sound
> quality.?

I'd expect the limiting factor to be the codec, which, in part, is
limited by the network, and base stations. All mobile phone codecs are
vocoder based, are therefore optimised for speech, whereas even the
basic landline codecs are 3.1kHz (300-3,400 Hz) audio codecs. The
latest mobile. and even some landline, codecs have an extended frequency
range, and may handle music better, but they are still based on vocal
tract models, and optimised for speech.

Mobile codecs typically can't render DTMF accurately, so that is sent
out of band uplink, and not supported downlink.

David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
> On 22/01/2024 14:07, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>> Is there a mobile 'phone on the market that gives even reasonable sound
>> quality.?
>
> I'd expect the limiting factor to be the codec, which, in part, is
> limited by the network, and base stations. All mobile phone codecs are
> vocoder based, are therefore optimised for speech, whereas even the
> basic landline codecs are 3.1kHz (300-3,400 Hz) audio codecs. The
> latest mobile. and even some landline, codecs have an extended frequency
> range, and may handle music better, but they are still based on vocal
> tract models, and optimised for speech.
>
> Mobile codecs typically can't render DTMF accurately, so that is sent
> out of band uplink, and not supported downlink.
>

I don’t recognise the OP’s issue. My iPhone gives me perfectly acceptable
speech telephony. Uses Vodafone. Traffic goes largely over 4G VoLTE or WiFi
calling. If the OP’s (virtual)network doesn’t yet support VoLTE and the
local 3G cell has been turned off it may be that voice calls are being
carried by 2G. That will force a low quality codec.

On Mon 22/01/2024 14:07, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> Is there a mobile 'phone on the market that gives even reasonable sound
> quality.?
>
> I have tested a fairly high-end Apple 'phone and a bottom-of-the-range
> Argos 'phone, they both give atrocious sound when heard on a good
> quality landline. I have yet to hear a mobile 'phone that didn't sound
> so bad that some of the speech was verging on unintelligible, cutting
> off the beginnings of words and lapsing into 'drainpipe' noises.
>
> Obviously I can't test the whole range that is on offer, but has anyone
> come across a decent one?
>
>

I have had a few Huawei phones and the audio quality has always been
premium rate. I wouldn't have an iPhone if you paid me.

If you don't want a smartphone, just speech and text, have a look at a
Doro 6nn or 6nnn clam-shell mobile. You will be hard pressed to find
<any> phone with better audio especially outgoing. It is helped as being
a clam-shell phone puts the mic right in front of the mouth!

Liz Tuddenham wrote:

> I have tested a fairly high-end Apple 'phone and a bottom-of-the-range
> Argos 'phone, they both give atrocious sound when heard on a good
> quality landline.

How's the quality mobile to mobile?

I believe EE to EE calls and Three to Three calls should use wideband
codecs, so could sound better than a landline ...

On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 18:53:37 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

>Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>
>> I have tested a fairly high-end Apple 'phone and a bottom-of-the-range
>> Argos 'phone, they both give atrocious sound when heard on a good
>> quality landline.
>
>How's the quality mobile to mobile?
>
>I believe EE to EE calls and Three to Three calls should use wideband
>codecs, so could sound better than a landline ...
>
As an aside (which should maybe be a new thread) how does VOIP compare
with mobile and 'landline'.

Scott wrote:

> As an aside (which should maybe be a new thread) how does VOIP compare
> with mobile and 'landline'.

depends what the phones negotiate, if both ends have G.722 codec it
should be better than PSTN quality

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 14:07:54 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
>
> >Is there a mobile 'phone on the market that gives even reasonable sound
> >quality.?
> >
> >I have tested a fairly high-end Apple 'phone and a bottom-of-the-range
> >Argos 'phone, they both give atrocious sound when heard on a good
> >quality landline. I have yet to hear a mobile 'phone that didn't sound
> >so bad that some of the speech was verging on unintelligible, cutting
> >off the beginnings of words and lapsing into 'drainpipe' noises.
> >
> >Obviously I can't test the whole range that is on offer, but has anyone
> >come across a decent one?
>
> Is this the phone or the network?

I have no way of testing.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> On Mon 22/01/2024 14:07, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> > Is there a mobile 'phone on the market that gives even reasonable sound
> > quality.?
> >
> > I have tested a fairly high-end Apple 'phone and a bottom-of-the-range
> > Argos 'phone, they both give atrocious sound when heard on a good
> > quality landline. I have yet to hear a mobile 'phone that didn't sound
> > so bad that some of the speech was verging on unintelligible, cutting
> > off the beginnings of words and lapsing into 'drainpipe' noises.
> >
> > Obviously I can't test the whole range that is on offer, but has anyone
> > come across a decent one?
> >
> >
[...]
> If you don't want a smartphone, just speech and text, have a look at a
> Doro 6nn or 6nnn clam-shell mobile. You will be hard pressed to find
> <any> phone with better audio especially outgoing. It is helped as being
> a clam-shell phone puts the mic right in front of the mouth!

Thanks, that's the sort of information I was looking for.

They do discocertingly like clones of the Argos 'phone I already use
(but 3 times the price) and the emphasis is on appearance, loudness and
'features', rather than speech quality.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 18:53:37 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>
>>> I have tested a fairly high-end Apple 'phone and a bottom-of-the-range
>>> Argos 'phone, they both give atrocious sound when heard on a good
>>> quality landline.
>>
>> How's the quality mobile to mobile?
>>
>> I believe EE to EE calls and Three to Three calls should use wideband
>> codecs, so could sound better than a landline ...
>>
> As an aside (which should maybe be a new thread) how does VOIP compare
> with mobile and 'landline'.
>

Better if done properly, worse if poorly implemented.

On 22/01/2024 19:19, Scott wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 18:53:37 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>
>>> I have tested a fairly high-end Apple 'phone and a bottom-of-the-range
>>> Argos 'phone, they both give atrocious sound when heard on a good
>>> quality landline.
>>
>> How's the quality mobile to mobile?
>>
>> I believe EE to EE calls and Three to Three calls should use wideband
>> codecs, so could sound better than a landline ...
>>
> As an aside (which should maybe be a new thread) how does VOIP compare
> with mobile and 'landline'.

in my admittedly limited experience, far better than either. There is
simply more bandwidth and there is no noise at all.

--
"An intellectual is a person knowledgeable in one field who speaks out
only in others...”

Tom Wolfe

On 22/01/2024 19:34, Tweed wrote:
> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 18:53:37 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have tested a fairly high-end Apple 'phone and a bottom-of-the-range
>>>> Argos 'phone, they both give atrocious sound when heard on a good
>>>> quality landline.
>>>
>>> How's the quality mobile to mobile?
>>>
>>> I believe EE to EE calls and Three to Three calls should use wideband
>>> codecs, so could sound better than a landline ...
>>>
>> As an aside (which should maybe be a new thread) how does VOIP compare
>> with mobile and 'landline'.
>>
>
> Better if done properly, worse if poorly implemented.
>

Any clues as to where I can find a blow by blow account of how to "do it
properly"?
--
Cheers,
Roger

On Mon 22/01/2024 19:32, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon 22/01/2024 14:07, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>> Is there a mobile 'phone on the market that gives even reasonable sound
>>> quality.?
>>>
>>> I have tested a fairly high-end Apple 'phone and a bottom-of-the-range
>>> Argos 'phone, they both give atrocious sound when heard on a good
>>> quality landline. I have yet to hear a mobile 'phone that didn't sound
>>> so bad that some of the speech was verging on unintelligible, cutting
>>> off the beginnings of words and lapsing into 'drainpipe' noises.
>>>
>>> Obviously I can't test the whole range that is on offer, but has anyone
>>> come across a decent one?
>>>
>>>
> [...]
>> If you don't want a smartphone, just speech and text, have a look at a
>> Doro 6nn or 6nnn clam-shell mobile. You will be hard pressed to find
>> <any> phone with better audio especially outgoing. It is helped as being
>> a clam-shell phone puts the mic right in front of the mouth!
>
> Thanks, that's the sort of information I was looking for.
>
> They do discocertingly like clones of the Argos 'phone I already use
> (but 3 times the price) and the emphasis is on appearance, loudness and
> 'features', rather than speech quality.
>
>
Try Computer Exchange (Bath branch is in Abbeygate Street) who do seem
to have them. The 612 is 2G only, the 6520 is 3G as well - not that that
will be of much use soon!

Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Mon 22/01/2024 19:32, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>> Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon 22/01/2024 14:07, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>>> Is there a mobile 'phone on the market that gives even reasonable sound
>>>> quality.?
>>>>
>>>> I have tested a fairly high-end Apple 'phone and a bottom-of-the-range
>>>> Argos 'phone, they both give atrocious sound when heard on a good
>>>> quality landline. I have yet to hear a mobile 'phone that didn't sound
>>>> so bad that some of the speech was verging on unintelligible, cutting
>>>> off the beginnings of words and lapsing into 'drainpipe' noises.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously I can't test the whole range that is on offer, but has anyone
>>>> come across a decent one?
>>>>
>>>>
>> [...]
>>> If you don't want a smartphone, just speech and text, have a look at a
>>> Doro 6nn or 6nnn clam-shell mobile. You will be hard pressed to find
>>> <any> phone with better audio especially outgoing. It is helped as being
>>> a clam-shell phone puts the mic right in front of the mouth!
>>
>> Thanks, that's the sort of information I was looking for.
>>
>> They do discocertingly like clones of the Argos 'phone I already use
>> (but 3 times the price) and the emphasis is on appearance, loudness and
>> 'features', rather than speech quality.
>>
>>
> Try Computer Exchange (Bath branch is in Abbeygate Street) who do seem
> to have them. The 612 is 2G only, the 6520 is 3G as well - not that that
> will be of much use soon!
>
>

I don’t think a 2G phone will ever give good speech quality given the
limitations of the codec. These days both the phone and the network
operator need to support VoLTE via 4/5G

On Tue 23/01/2024 07:02, Tweed wrote:
> Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> On Mon 22/01/2024 19:32, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>> Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon 22/01/2024 14:07, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>>>> Is there a mobile 'phone on the market that gives even reasonable sound
>>>>> quality.?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have tested a fairly high-end Apple 'phone and a bottom-of-the-range
>>>>> Argos 'phone, they both give atrocious sound when heard on a good
>>>>> quality landline. I have yet to hear a mobile 'phone that didn't sound
>>>>> so bad that some of the speech was verging on unintelligible, cutting
>>>>> off the beginnings of words and lapsing into 'drainpipe' noises.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously I can't test the whole range that is on offer, but has anyone
>>>>> come across a decent one?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> [...]
>>>> If you don't want a smartphone, just speech and text, have a look at a
>>>> Doro 6nn or 6nnn clam-shell mobile. You will be hard pressed to find
>>>> <any> phone with better audio especially outgoing. It is helped as being
>>>> a clam-shell phone puts the mic right in front of the mouth!
>>>
>>> Thanks, that's the sort of information I was looking for.
>>>
>>> They do discocertingly like clones of the Argos 'phone I already use
>>> (but 3 times the price) and the emphasis is on appearance, loudness and
>>> 'features', rather than speech quality.
>>>
>>>
>> Try Computer Exchange (Bath branch is in Abbeygate Street) who do seem
>> to have them. The 612 is 2G only, the 6520 is 3G as well - not that that
>> will be of much use soon!
>>
>>
>
> I don’t think a 2G phone will ever give good speech quality given the
> limitations of the codec. These days both the phone and the network
> operator need to support VoLTE via 4/5G
>

The point is that it is all subjective. You may, for technical reasons
(which I as a retired mobile radio engineer understand) may say that a
2G codec can never give good speech quality but I would defy anyone to
say that after a practical test especially with the Doro 612. My wife
and my late father in law both had/have one and the audio really is that
good.

On 22/01/2024 21:31, Roger Mills wrote:
> On 22/01/2024 19:34, Tweed wrote:
>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 18:53:37 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have tested a fairly high-end Apple 'phone and a bottom-of-the-range
>>>>> Argos 'phone, they both give atrocious sound when heard on a good
>>>>> quality landline.
>>>>
>>>> How's the quality mobile to mobile?
>>>>
>>>> I believe EE to EE calls and Three to Three calls should use wideband
>>>> codecs, so could sound better than a landline ...
>>>>
>>> As an aside (which should maybe be a new thread) how does VOIP compare
>>> with mobile and 'landline'.
>>>
>>
>> Better if done properly, worse if poorly implemented.
>>
>
> Any clues as to where I can find a blow by blow account of how to "do it
> properly"?

My only experience has been using routers that have built in POTS ports
(Cisco/Draytek) and setting them up to use SIPGATE.

And plugging that into my home PABX.
Over ADSL that was better quality than landline.
There are pages of tunables for VOIP, but I didn't bother. It worked out
of the box. The only issues were occasional sub second 'breaks' when
other traffic saturated the broadband.
The advantage of using the router is that it can prioritise VOIP over
streaming traffic.

--
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the
other is to refuse to believe what is true.”

—Soren Kierkegaard

On 23/01/2024 07:45, Woody wrote:
> On Tue 23/01/2024 07:02, Tweed wrote:
>> Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon 22/01/2024 19:32, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>>> Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon 22/01/2024 14:07, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>>>>> Is there a mobile 'phone on the market that gives even reasonable
>>>>>> sound
>>>>>> quality.?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have tested a fairly high-end Apple 'phone and a
>>>>>> bottom-of-the-range
>>>>>> Argos 'phone, they both give atrocious sound when heard on a good
>>>>>> quality landline.  I have yet to hear a mobile 'phone that didn't
>>>>>> sound
>>>>>> so bad that some of the speech was verging on unintelligible, cutting
>>>>>> off the beginnings of words and lapsing into 'drainpipe' noises.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously I can't test the whole range that is on offer, but has
>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>> come across a decent one?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>> If you don't want a smartphone, just speech and text, have a look at a
>>>>> Doro 6nn or 6nnn clam-shell mobile. You will be hard pressed to find
>>>>> <any> phone with better audio especially outgoing. It is helped as
>>>>> being
>>>>> a clam-shell phone puts the mic right in front of the mouth!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, that's the sort of information I was looking for.
>>>>
>>>> They do discocertingly like clones of the Argos 'phone I already use
>>>> (but 3 times the price) and the emphasis is on appearance, loudness and
>>>> 'features', rather than speech quality.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Try Computer Exchange (Bath branch is in Abbeygate Street) who do seem
>>> to have them. The 612 is 2G only, the 6520 is 3G as well - not that that
>>> will be of much use soon!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I don’t think a 2G phone will ever give good speech quality given the
>> limitations of the codec. These days both the phone and the network
>> operator need to support VoLTE via 4/5G
>>
>
> The point is that it is all subjective. You may, for technical reasons
> (which I as a retired mobile radio engineer understand) may say that a
> 2G codec can never give good speech quality but I would defy anyone to
> say that after a practical test especially with the Doro 612. My wife
> and my late father in law both had/have one and the audio really is that
> good.

Crappiest audio I have come across is I-phones. Dunno why.
They seem to work well over Whatsapp etc.

--
“It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of
intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on
intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is
futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into,
we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every
criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a
power-directed system of thought.”
Sir Roger Scruton

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 14:07:54 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
>
> >Is there a mobile 'phone on the market that gives even reasonable sound
> >quality.?
> >
> >I have tested a fairly high-end Apple 'phone and a bottom-of-the-range
> >Argos 'phone, they both give atrocious sound when heard on a good
> >quality landline. I have yet to hear a mobile 'phone that didn't sound
> >so bad that some of the speech was verging on unintelligible, cutting
> >off the beginnings of words and lapsing into 'drainpipe' noises.
> >
> >Obviously I can't test the whole range that is on offer, but has anyone
> >come across a decent one?
>
> Is this the phone or the network?

I've been thinking about that: I presume the BBC will have no
significant constraints on their network connections, yet I contantly
hear phone-ins from UK contributors with huge delays or where the speech
is broken up by drop-outs.

At first it sounds as though the speaker is a bit hesitant or has some
sort of speech problem - but then it becames apparent that the silences
are occurring at regular intervals and whole syllables are missing. It
makes contributors very difficult to follow and sometimes garbles their
speech to the point where the meaning is lost completely.

Occasionally the presenter will cut them off because the quality is so
bad, but that is usually long after it has become so distracting that
their contribution is no longer worth listening to.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On 23/01/2024 12:22, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> I've been thinking about that: I presume the BBC will have no
> significant constraints on their network connections, yet I contantly
> hear phone-ins from UK contributors with huge delays or where the speech
> is broken up by drop-outs.

That's not a sound quality issue, although it may cause one; it is a
network problem.

David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
> On 23/01/2024 12:22, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> > I've been thinking about that: I presume the BBC will have no
> > significant constraints on their network connections, yet I contantly
> > hear phone-ins from UK contributors with huge delays or where the speech
> > is broken up by drop-outs.
>
> That's not a sound quality issue, although it may cause one; it is a
> network problem.

If the sound is so bad you can't understand it then it's a sound
quality problem. What causes the problem (latency, dropouts, wrong or
mis-matched codecs) is another matter.

--
Chris Green
·

On 23/01/2024 14:12, Chris Green wrote:
> David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>> On 23/01/2024 12:22, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>> I've been thinking about that: I presume the BBC will have no
>>> significant constraints on their network connections, yet I contantly
>>> hear phone-ins from UK contributors with huge delays or where the speech
>>> is broken up by drop-outs.
>>
>> That's not a sound quality issue, although it may cause one; it is a
>> network problem.
>
> If the sound is so bad you can't understand it then it's a sound
> quality problem. What causes the problem (latency, dropouts, wrong or
> mis-matched codecs) is another matter.
>
>
I suspect it is video calls to skype etc over a seriously low bandwidth
line.
There is no reason that VOIP should be in anyway degraded. Raw BT
landline is over fixed 64kbps links - only mobiles use less.

With broadband anything over 256kbps uplink should be fine.

--
“it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalin’s Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.”

Vaclav Klaus

On 23/01/2024 12:22, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> I contantly
> hear phone-ins from UK contributors with huge delays or where the speech
> is broken up by drop-outs.

If you are thinking of prearranged ones and their own correspondents, I
suspect a lot of those are done using video conferencing applications,
which might not prioritise audio over video, enough. Quite often the
same material is used for both radio and TV news.

I think most of the general public ones are the result of poor mobile
phone coverage.

On 22/01/2024 19:26, Andy Burns wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
>> As an aside (which should maybe be a new thread) how does VOIP compare
>> with mobile and 'landline'.
>
> depends what the phones negotiate, if both ends have G.722 codec it
> should be better than PSTN quality

I must say, I'm completely and utterly unimpressed with my Sipgate
Starter/Basic service.

I've had it for 18 months, but recently received my first 'real' phone
call. The call quality (from within the UK, on a BT Landline with hard
wired phone) was diabolical. In fact so diabolical my friend tried
ringing back twice. He then called me on my POTs landline and all was
good. Other calls from outside of Sipgate are similarly crap.

If I do the various echo tests to 10005, both the received quality of Mr
Sipgate's voice, and my own recordings are fine, in fact really good.
Codec G.722.

Also, initiated calls don't cleardown until 35 to 40 seconds after I
hang up,

For instance, if I call my mobile, let it ring once, then hang up (the
Sipgate phone) the mobile carries on ringing for 35 seconds, the
mobile's voicemail kicks in, and kerching, 15p gone.

Is this the future ?

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 23/01/2024 14:12, Chris Green wrote:
> > David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 23/01/2024 12:22, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> >>> I've been thinking about that: I presume the BBC will have no
> >>> significant constraints on their network connections, yet I contantly
> >>> hear phone-ins from UK contributors with huge delays or where the speech
> >>> is broken up by drop-outs.
> >>
> >> That's not a sound quality issue, although it may cause one; it is a
> >> network problem.
> >
> > If the sound is so bad you can't understand it then it's a sound
> > quality problem. What causes the problem (latency, dropouts, wrong or
> > mis-matched codecs) is another matter.
> >
> >
> I suspect it is video calls to skype etc over a seriously low bandwidth
> line.
> There is no reason that VOIP should be in anyway degraded. Raw BT
> landline is over fixed 64kbps links - only mobiles use less.
>
> With broadband anything over 256kbps uplink should be fine.
>
In principle, obviously, yes - more bandwidth will give one better
quality, however this doesn't appear always to be true in reality!

BT landlines have a century or so of development which resulted in
maximum of intelligibility over minimal bandwidth.

In many cases I think it's people using mobiles in 'speaker' mode
where the possibilities for picking up unwanted noise etc. are much
greater than when using it like a 'proper' phone.

--
Chris Green
·