• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Technology News You Can Use

Frank Dernie said:
I have a weird aversion to voice activation. I don't like making phone calls either
Click to expand...
One thing that's bothered me since the advent of cell phones is the lack of voice reproduction quality. I seem to remember that in the days of hard wired analog phones, voice quality was clearer. Certainly no drop outs, etc. Maybe it is just my hearing that's deteriorated.

As far as voice activated devices? I'm too old, but if I was just born, or in my next life, I think I could get used to a voice activated Nexus 6 model Pris house keeper and sandwich maker. That that day is coming. The Japanese may already have one on the market. And soon the Chinese--an Angelababy model.

I once had a Nissan Maxima that spoke to me--in kind of an emotionless female voice. It would say, "Seat belt not fastened." Or, "Door not closed." Always something negative. It never said, "You're looking pretty good this morning, master." It never said, "I like the feel of your firm yet gentle hands on my steering wheel. The way you press my buttons..." After a while I couldn't take her emotionless negativity. I wasn't an easy decision, but I had to do it. I went deep..., under the dash. Started pulling wires. As I was disconnecting I thought I heard her say, "Dave. Are you sure you want to do this? Stop Dave. I'm afraid Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. You're hurting me!" But I didn't care. Besides, my name isn't Dave, so I was wondering if she was cheating on me? Letting another man drive my car while I was at work?
 
anmpr1 said:
I seem to remember that in the days of hard wired analog phones, voice quality was clearer.
Click to expand...

It was my job to make that happen in the '80s

Your residential hard-wired analog line was hard-wired and analog to the local phone office (usually not more than a mile or two away) or remote substation, or more recently a remote aggregator.

The analog was then digitized with a bandwidth of about 300 to 3.4kHz, and occupied a 64kbit time slot (end-to-end dedicated bandwidth) on a circuit-switched connection between you and the destination. Think of lossless and (nearly) real-time transmission between your phone office and the distant office. There would be a little buffering along the way, to permit the call to jump timeslots among the machines that handled the call, but basically, the bytes proceed down the line as quickly as possible - no waiting for other traffic - you had your assigned place in the line rotating to serve all comers equally, (or not at all if all the "circuits" were busy at some point in the path).

Unless you were on a "party-line", and shared your copper line with one or more other customers. they you might have to wait on your neighbor to finish their call.

Now (and I have no idea exactly how it works), you are digitized in your phone, a bundle of packets are collected then forwarded on a "served as we can get to it" network, and forwarded when possible toward the destination, hence, the delay that you normally don't notice, and the possibility of lost data as your connection to the local (miles away?) tower tries to read your feeble signal among all the others it is handling at the same time. You have a "virtual" connection - in that your data is addressed to the destination, but there is no "bandwidth pipe" reserved for and dedicated to your voice/data. Whatever is interpreted as silence is probably not transmitted, while on the circuit-switched network it would be.

But, you might also remember "discount" $0.10/minute long distance rates, which would calculate the price of a gigabyte of data at about $255.

1,073,741,824 - bytes in a gig
8,589,934,592 - bits in a gig
56,000 bits/s transmission rate (the network stole one of eight bits on your 64kbit line for their own purposes)
153,391 seconds (2,556 minutes, 42.6 hours) to transfer
And at $0.10/minute, about $255 before taxes.
 
Last edited:
RayDunzl said:
It was my job to make that happen in the '80s

Your residential hard-wired analog line was hard-wired and analog to the local phone office (usually not more than a mile or two away) or remote substation, or more recently a remote aggregator.

The analog was then digitized with a bandwidth of about 300 to 3.4kHz, and occupied a 64kbit time slot (end-to-end dedicated bandwidth) on a circuit-switched connection between you and the destination. Think of lossless and (nearly) real-time transmission between your phone office and the distant office. There would be a little buffering along the way, to permit the call to jump timeslots among the machines that handled the call, but basically, the bytes proceed down the line as quickly as possible - no waiting for other traffic - you had your assigned place in the line rotating to serve all comers equally, (or not at all if all the "circuits" were busy at some point in the path).

Unless you were on a "party-line", and shared your copper line with one or more other customers. they you might have to wait on your neighbor to finish their call.

Now (and I have no idea exactly how it works), you are digitized in your phone, a bundle of packets are collected then forwarded on a "served as we can get to it" network, and forwarded when possible toward the destination, hence, the delay that you normally don't notice, and the possibility of lost data as your connection to the local (miles away?) tower tries to read your feeble signal among all the others it is handling at the same time. You have a "virtual" connection - in that your data is addressed to the destination, but there is no "bandwidth pipe" reserved for and dedicated to your voice/data. Whatever is interpreted as silence is probably not transmitted, while on the circuit-switched network it would be.

But, you might also remember "discount" $0.10/minute long distance rates, which would calculate the price of a gigabyte of data at about $255.

1,073,741,824 - bytes in a gig
8,589,934,592 - bits in a gig
56,000 bits/s transmission rate (the network stole one of eight bits on your 64kbit line for their own purposes)
153,391 seconds (2,556 minutes, 42.6 hours) to transfer
And at $0.10/minute, about $255 before taxes.
Click to expand...
Wasn't it also the case that those wired phones were full duplex. Cell phones are not. One of the annoying things to me, and the main reason they are harder to speak on. Usually my cell phone is very quiet vs old analog lines. Often if I am in a quiet place on my end, and have not said anything for a few seconds people ask "hey you still there?". I wish they would make cell phones full duplex instead of half duplex. There was talk of it 5 years ago. Apparently it causes more dropped calls. Of course they aren't likely to do that.
 
BTW, this sure looks like an in home personal follow you around spy robot. Why call it a robot. It doesn't have any appendages to do anything for you.

 
Blumlein 88 said:
BTW, this sure looks like an in home personal follow you around spy robot. Why call it a robot. It doesn't have any appendages to do anything for you.

Click to expand...
My god I don't even have a microwave oven. I do not want this near future. Anyway this girl is single, has no family and believe the ball has a kind of conscience...
 
Blumlein 88 said:
Wasn't it also the case that those wired phones were full duplex. Cell phones are not. One of the annoying things to me, and the main reason they are harder to speak on. Usually my cell phone is very quiet vs old analog lines. Often if I am in a quiet place on my end, and have not said anything for a few seconds people ask "hey you still there?". I wish they would make cell phones full duplex instead of half duplex. There was talk of it 5 years ago. Apparently it causes more dropped calls. Of course they aren't likely to do that.
Click to expand...

I don't think cell phones are half duplex.

The encoder likely has a noise gate, so, if it detects "silence", nothing is sent to the other end. You are sharing resources on the cell tower, so if you aren't talking they would prefer not to waste resources on you.

Having taken my guess, I'd better take a look:

1578757600306.png


https://books.google.com/books?id=h0KhvvfvXFEC&pg=PT72&lpg=PT72&dq=cell+phone+encoder+silence&source=bl&ots=dN97aoy56H&sig=ACfU3U17yCilU1WGts_1b7_kjQm_fS-pMw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjBzczq8fvmAhUnVt8KHUuZDasQ6AEwFHoECA0QAQ#v=onepage&q=cell phone encoder silence&f=false

Ok, they (might) supply compressed fake silence.

I briefly worked on an early Cell Site in Auburn California in 1984 or so. I was probably the only guy in town with a Cell Phone - one of those big as a brick things, so, anything I know about them is terribly out-of-date.

1578758094206.png


I didn't have a "personal" cell phone till 2000, and it was still a work phone.
 
Last edited:
Blumlein 88 said:
One of the annoying things to me, and the main reason they are harder to speak on. Usually my cell phone is very quiet vs old analog lines.
Click to expand...

We replaced some antique phone office in Grand Isle, Louisiana, with the latest greatest digital system

Did all the testing and put it in service at midnight. Being Louisiana, the cutover party started at 7pm and we were all trashed by the time it went online.

Next day the complaints started.

"We can't call up the bayou!"

note: Any call that went off the Island was considered to be "up the bayou".

Test: Works fine, no problem.

Complaints keep coming.

Figured out the old system would click and clack as the call signalling progressed through the other offices (mechanical relays) on the way to the destination phone.

The new system wouldn't open the voice path until the other end signalled that it was ringing the phone.

So they'd make the call, hear silence, and give up. Try again, same thing.

Had to get a software patch for that one,. It was the only place I know of where that was necessary, probably due to the age and slowness of the distant offices.

1578759080120.png


The main office was in Larose (see map), up the LaFourche Bayou (river). Pronounced "La-Foosh".

All the trucks had the company logo like this on the doors:

1578759842054.png


That's gone now, another victim of some kind of perceived problem with Political Correctness, I suppose.

Last time I looked the name had changed to just LaTelCo with nothing remotely as memorable for a corporate logo.
 
Last edited:
RayDunzl said:
I briefly worked on an early Cell Site in Auburn California in 1984 or so. I was probably the only guy in town with a Cell Phone - one of those big as a brick things, so, anything I know about them is terribly out-of-date.
Click to expand...
I remember when they came out. I was in a bar and a guy sat down beside me. He placed his on the bar. I thought, "What is that? A walkie-talkie?" For those who remember the reference, Paul E. Dangerously used one as a weapon if it looked like his team was going to lose.

My father in law had an early mobile phone. Mounted in the trunk of his Town Car- the unit was the size of a briefcase. If he wanted to make a call he had to pull over, get out and hope he didn't get hit on the side of the road while he talked! Not being rich or important, as far as I got was CB. When they were popular for about a week. I had one of those in my car, but don't remember ever using it. 10-4.
 
Blumlein 88 said:
BTW, this sure looks like an in home personal follow you around spy robot. Why call it a robot. It doesn't have any appendages to do anything for you.
Click to expand...

A perfect subject for a Black Mirror episode. (By far the best TV series on technology and society that I have ever (downloaded and) watched. The term black mirror refers to the appearance of smart phones and other devices when the screen is turned off.)

Black Mirror is a British science fiction anthology television series created by Charlie Brooker...It examines modern society, particularly with regard to the unanticipated consequences of new technologies.
Click to expand...
 
jhaider said:
Interesting piece on an experimental technology to develop local heat from solar for industrial processes such as cement making. Bill Gates is a backer.

The author’s central insight rings true to me: “the clean-energy transition is going to proceed in large part by substituting computing power for material and labor, i.e., intelligence for stuff.”

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/11/19/20970252/climate-change-solar-heat-heliogen-csp
Click to expand...


The raw material processing, producing CO2 from the chemical reactions is a big problem.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46455844

Making it cheaper to make more, energy-wise, may not lead to an overall CO2 emissions level improvement. o_O
 
Heard it on the radio today, plant one billion trees and we're good. Seems the easiest way.
 
Blumlein 88 said:
Wasn't it also the case that those wired phones were full duplex. Cell phones are not. One of the annoying things to me, and the main reason they are harder to speak on. Usually my cell phone is very quiet vs old analog lines. Often if I am in a quiet place on my end, and have not said anything for a few seconds people ask "hey you still there?". I wish they would make cell phones full duplex instead of half duplex. There was talk of it 5 years ago. Apparently it causes more dropped calls. Of course they aren't likely to do that.
Click to expand...
Only partly true on both sides. The old PSTN was full duplex from office to office but used a two-conductor "copper loop" from office to your handset. Read about the interesting circuit used to make that trick work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_hybrid It had some nice qualities, like you could hear yourself as you speak: monitoring!

It's also not quite right to say that modern cell phone service is half-duplex. What we have is silence suppression and comfort noise insertion. Not nice and way worse than old-timey POTS but you can talk while the other party is talking and (if all is working properly) be heard. Contrast that with the experience of using speaker phones that were truly half-duplex. Somebody talking at their phone just couldn't hear anything anyone else said on the other end.

That said, I find cell phone service in the USA so unbelievably bad that I don't understand why everyone hasn't already switched to Whatsapp or Viber or Telegram or Whatever or Anything but the garbage from Verizon and AT&T, please, ffs please!

Actually, the same goes for SMS text messages. The experience of bad quality isn't as abject as it is for telephony but it's really bad compared to any of those apps.

Moreover, the telephony and SMS provided by the cell phone network are probably the only badly insecure services you use on the mobile handset. How much does it cost to make a DIY base station that can do MITM for both? I'll let y'all google that for yourselves.
 
Flashback alert!
With a few techy friends, we designed and built a prototype full duplex speakerphone based on the then brand new SLIC chip that Motorola introduced in the early 80s, a VERY 'off design intent' use of it, which impressed the Motorola engineers to no end.
(The same functions as this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_card but on a single chip! Amazing!)
The thing was positively eerie to use - very little line noise, proper amount of 'sidetone', and could walk around anywhere in the room and hear clearly, with no feedback or ringing. We used, as I recall, some different EQ on send and receive sides and, I think, throat mics (electrets?) to get it near perfect?
Was a long time ago; then life and death intervened and we were never able to pursue it further.

Then the market went whole hog to those horrid "fast" voxing speakerphones, and the beginning of the end of clear full duplex telephony had begun.
(I do have to say the VOIP set I use at home now is surprisingly good - but I positively hate using any smart/cell phone today.

PSTN was a fascinatingly weird complex of leveraging various 'natural' electrical characteristics (carbon mics were interesting) all together to form a dang good quality and very durable voice communication system. Ma Bell really knew her physics.

I later used those same sample SLIC chips from Motorola to build a home phone system that (powered by two sinclair zx81s, running tons of BASIC code) allowed me to use home DMTF phones for remote control (lighting, TV, stereo, tape machine - including phone calls and messages) and the speakerphone circuit. The idea was - you have phones in every room, right? Why not also use them also as remote controls for all the other devices you have around the house? I even got it to work with the early generations of wireless home phones....

More life, more deaths....nothing came of it. But man was it fun to build!!
 

BTW, this guy was an ME at JPL on the Mars rover, and AND inventor of the porch pirate glitter bomb
 
I HATE smart cell phones, like to throw them all in a live volcano and vaporize them.
And the owners who insist on always using them on "speakerphone", in with them.
 
Or are always 'not available at the moment, please leave a message" - when it is at-home time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sha1rholder
China International Headphone EXPO interview record: What are HiFi manufacturers doing recently?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Snoopy
S
Back
Top Bottom