Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #163994 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Dario Niedermann <dnied@tiscali.it> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-26 09:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-06-04 22:15 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 87 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
[BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Dario Niedermann <dnied@tiscali.it> - 2016-05-26 09:10 +0200
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-26 00:28 -0700
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-26 12:40 -0400
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Dave Pitts <dpitts@cozx.com> - 2016-05-26 07:42 -0600
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 09:00 -0500
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-26 07:09 -0700
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-05-26 07:28 -0700
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-26 12:43 -0400
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-05-26 14:01 -0500
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-26 16:22 -0400
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-05-27 13:08 +0000
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Dave Pitts <dpitts@cozx.com> - 2016-05-27 07:43 -0600
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-27 15:58 +0100
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2016-05-27 17:13 +0300
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-27 16:36 +0100
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-05-27 15:48 +0100
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-27 12:47 -0400
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-28 15:18 -0400
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-28 22:48 -0400
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-05-29 09:55 +0000
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-29 07:26 -0400
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> - 2016-05-30 12:48 -0400
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-30 13:37 -0400
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-30 13:35 -0500
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-30 23:26 -0400
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 23:34 -0400
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' roger.ivie@gmail.com - 2016-05-30 21:23 -0700
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-31 07:11 -0700
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-31 10:46 -0400
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-31 21:28 +0200
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 11:37 -0500
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-31 16:49 +0000
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-31 21:35 +0200
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-31 20:21 +0000
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Morten Reistad <first@last.name.imvalid> - 2016-06-01 01:33 +0200
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-01 00:13 +0000
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Morten Reistad <first@last,name.invalid> - 2016-06-01 08:34 +0200
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 06:32 -0400
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-06-01 12:01 +0100
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-01 17:41 +0000
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-01 21:39 +0200
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 16:46 -0400
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-02 12:10 +0200
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Morten Reistad <first@Last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-01 13:12 +0200
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-01 13:07 -0700
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 16:54 -0400
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 07:15 +0100
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-01 10:20 -0700
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-06-01 14:26 -0400
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-01 14:03 -0700
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 18:09 -0500
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-06-02 15:23 -0400
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 14:31 -0500
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-02 20:44 +0000
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-02 16:01 -0700
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 18:28 -0500
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:52 +0000
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-01 16:19 +0200
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 15:35 +0100
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-01 17:42 +0000
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-31 14:16 -0700
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-31 16:09 -0400
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-31 20:24 +0000
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-06-01 07:14 +0000
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-31 17:41 -0700
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-31 19:24 -0700
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-01 10:45 +0200
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-31 07:03 +0100
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-31 10:16 -0500
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-31 15:51 +0000
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-05-31 07:23 +0000
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-31 16:49 +0000
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-31 17:36 -0700
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-05-31 07:16 +0000
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-28 13:11 -0700
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 16:50 -0400
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-29 10:08 +0000
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-29 15:04 +0200
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-29 16:41 -0400
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-31 17:29 -0700
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-01 10:24 +0200
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-29 07:26 -0400
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-29 07:11 -0500
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-29 15:09 +0200
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-29 16:41 -0400
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-31 17:26 -0700
Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-04 22:15 -0500
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 07:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <328116020.486213914.372545.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164096 |
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: > On Sat, 28 May 2016, Peter Flass wrote: > >> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >>> On Fri, 27 May 2016, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote: >>> >>>> On 27 May 2016 13:08:59 GMT, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2016-05-26, Dario Niedermann <dnied@tiscali.it> wrote: >>>>>> From the "Not-broken:don't-fix" dept.: >>>>>> >>>>>> Ķ Department of Defence systems [...] "runs on an IBM Series-1 Computer >>>>>> Ķ - a 1970s computing system - and uses eight-inch floppy disks". >>>>>> Ķ >>>>>> Ķ "This system remains in use because, in short, it still works," >>>>>> Ķ Pentagon spokeswoman [...] told the AFP news agency. >>>>>> Ķ >>>>>> Ķ "[...] floppy drives are scheduled to be replaced with secure >>>>>> Ķ digital devices by the end of 2017." >>>>>> Ķ >>>>>> Ķ [...] Pentagon was planning to fully replace the system >>>>>> Ķ by the end of 2020. >>>>>> Ķ >>>>>> Ķ [...] US treasury also needed to upgrade its systems, which it said >>>>>> Ķ was using "assembly language code - [...] initially used in the 1950s >>>>>> Ķ and typically tied to the hardware for which it was developed". >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36385839 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Fascinating - they must have a supplier that provides new 8" floppies as >>>>> necessary; I wonder who they've found to do so, as it almost certainly >>>>> requires special fabrication and manufacturing processes these days, and >>>>> there are almost certainly rising costs associated with that niche >>>>> processing that would affect its viability. >>>>> >>>>> As for custom assembly code running on dedicated hardware, I'd be the last >>>>> guy on earth to recommend replacing it. It works, so why replace it? Train >>>>> somebody to understand the code, and be done with it. >>>> >>>> They probably have a stock of 8" floppy disks that can be used and >>>> reused as needed. I chucked a box full in the bin when I moved house 3 >>>> years ago. One day floppy discs will become valuable antiques! >>>> Someone, somewhere will have a few thousand for sale if the price is >>>> right. >>>> >>> The only 8" floppies I've seen up close was the box I found behind a >>> church after their rummage sale was over. Made me regret not going to >>> that sale, I wonder if a computer that went with those floppies was >>> for sale. So I did bring that box home, a novelty since I have no drives >>> for 8" floppies. >>> >>> People are still finding new old stock vacuum tubes, so I can imagine >>> there being lots of stock of old floppies still available. There probably >>> are places that search for them, buying them up when available, to keep >>> their stock ready. A diminishing demand, but for those who need them, the >>> money is probably there. >>> >>> I can't quite imagine 5.25" floppies becoming collectible antiques. There >>> were so many made, I have a ton of them (used), and I'm not the only one. >>> >>> If I actually went back and copied the 5.25" floppies I used, I could free >>> them up. >>> >> >> I've been copying the data and tossing them. I still have boxes to go >> thru. >> > These aren't "IBM compatible" or I would have copied them some time back. > These are from my Radio Shack Color Computer, starting in 1984. To > compund the problem, the original controller ROM had a different format, > when the CoCo III came out the ROM was no longer compatible, so I had to > replace it. So I have to dig out my original CoCo, change the ROM (it was > actually an eprom, so maybe it's been erased, provided I can find it), > then get them off there somehow, then change the ROM and copy the later > floppies. And that's before any issues of how the word processors saved > the files. So something to keep putting off. > Someone must have copied the rom to a file by now. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-30 12:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nihqs8$b3m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #164069 |
On 2016-05-27 12:47 PM, Michael Black wrote: > People are still finding new old stock vacuum tubes, People (hams that like old equipment) are still buying old stock vacuum tubes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-30 13:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1605301335460.31619@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #164134 |
On Mon, 30 May 2016, Alan Bowler wrote: > On 2016-05-27 12:47 PM, Michael Black wrote: >> People are still finding new old stock vacuum tubes, > > People (hams that like old equipment) are still buying > old stock vacuum tubes. > > And that happens because so very many tubes were made over a really long period. Some argue that other than for the audio people, there are enough tubes around, for the few running the equipment, and for those who collect old radios (but who might not use them regularly). I'm saying floppy disks probably fit the same situation. They may not be at the corner store anymore, but there probably are enough for those who are still using them. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-30 13:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dr3ff2FoiipU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #164136 |
"Michael Black" wrote: > Some argue that other than for the audio people, there are enough tubes > around, for the few running the equipment, and for those who collect old > radios (but who might not use them regularly). There is a TV program that says that modern guitars have a purposely introduced distortion unique to vacuum tubes. The only *unique* distortion I know of is microphonics. I have listened to some of this alleged music but the sound is such a mess that I can't figure out what they are talking about. Can someone clarify this? It just sounds to me like they have too much audio power on too small a speaker. Like a 50 W amplifier, turned way up and driving a five inch speaker.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-30 23:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1605302320210.32461@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #164137 |
On Mon, 30 May 2016, Osmium wrote: > "Michael Black" wrote: > >> Some argue that other than for the audio people, there are enough tubes >> around, for the few running the equipment, and for those who collect old >> radios (but who might not use them regularly). > > There is a TV program that says that modern guitars have a purposely > introduced distortion unique to vacuum tubes. The only *unique* distortion I > know of is microphonics. I have listened to some of this alleged music but > the sound is such a mess that I can't figure out what they are talking about. > Can someone clarify this? It just sounds to me like they have too much audio > power on too small a speaker. Like a 50 W amplifier, turned way up and > driving a five inch speaker. > That's how they came up with "fuzz" (ie deliberate distortion), for a while they just used a small amplifier and picked up the output with a microphone, then someone came up with a little box that went between the guitar and the sound system, that distorted without the complication. I don't really follow this stuff, but the topology used when transistors (and later ICs) came along is different from tubes, so even without the active devices being the cause, how they are used may be an issue. I seem to recall something about tubes clipping signals differently from transistors, so that may factor in too. Remember, the issue isn't "perfect" audio, but a certain sound, so the tubes may be imperfect, but the sound that they want. One small company offered tube sound, by seling a kit that was a stereo preamp, using a triode or two per channel. So this got the audio through a tube for that "tube sound" but didn't require lots of tubes or bulky tube equipment. I don't remember if in reality it gave that 'tube sound" or not. I see people dismiss shortwave radios "because the sound is bad". Of ocurse it won't sound good, there's a tiny speaker in there. But they decide that radio is no good, despite any features and benefits it has over others, and would rather use a much cheaper radio that happens to have a big speaker. Why not just use an external speaker? In the old days, the better shortwave radios did that. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-30 23:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31b6d041ce22909798a1ec@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164143 |
In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1605302320210.32461@darkstar.example.org>, et472@ncf.ca says... > > On Mon, 30 May 2016, Osmium wrote: > > > "Michael Black" wrote: > > > >> Some argue that other than for the audio people, there are enough tubes > >> around, for the few running the equipment, and for those who collect old > >> radios (but who might not use them regularly). > > > > There is a TV program that says that modern guitars have a purposely > > introduced distortion unique to vacuum tubes. The only *unique* distortion I > > know of is microphonics. I have listened to some of this alleged music but > > the sound is such a mess that I can't figure out what they are talking about. > > Can someone clarify this? It just sounds to me like they have too much audio > > power on too small a speaker. Like a 50 W amplifier, turned way up and > > driving a five inch speaker. > > > That's how they came up with "fuzz" (ie deliberate distortion), for a > while they just used a small amplifier and picked up the output with a > microphone, then someone came up with a little box that went between the > guitar and the sound system, that distorted without the complication. > > I don't really follow this stuff, but the topology used when transistors > (and later ICs) came along is different from tubes, so even without the > active devices being the cause, how they are used may be an issue. I seem > to recall something about tubes clipping signals differently from > transistors, so that may factor in too. Remember, the issue isn't > "perfect" audio, but a certain sound, so the tubes may be imperfect, but > the sound that they want. > > One small company offered tube sound, by seling a kit that was a stereo > preamp, using a triode or two per channel. So this got the audio through > a tube for that "tube sound" but didn't require lots of tubes or bulky > tube equipment. I don't remember if in reality it gave that 'tube sound" > or not. > > I see people dismiss shortwave radios "because the sound is bad". Of > ocurse it won't sound good, there's a tiny speaker in there. But they > decide that radio is no good, despite any features and benefits it has > over others, and would rather use a much cheaper radio that happens to > have a big speaker. Why not just use an external speaker? In the old > days, the better shortwave radios did that. For a while some outfit was selling PC motherboards with a tube preamp for audio. <http://ixbtlabs.com/articles2/aopentube/> > > > Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | roger.ivie@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-30 21:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cdbb9d98-a361-4619-98e9-d2434db7edfc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #164144 |
On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 8:34:29 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: > > For a while some outfit was selling PC motherboards with a tube preamp > for audio. http://hackerboards.com/raspberry-pi-gets-a-hybrid-tube-audio-amp-hat/ -- roger ivie roger.ivie@gmail.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 07:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <35921cde-3d66-4149-8ccc-422dae8fa436@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #164143 |
On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 9:26:13 PM UTC-6, Michael Black wrote: > Why not just use an external speaker? In the old > days, the better shortwave radios did that. That may be, but FM radios have better sound quality than short-wave radios for reasons that a speaker won't help. FM signals have a high inherent noise immunity; short-wave broadcasts come from the other side of the world, and have been repeatedly subjected to the vagaries of the ionosphere. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 10:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1605311044320.907@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #164156 |
On Tue, 31 May 2016, Quadibloc wrote: > On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 9:26:13 PM UTC-6, Michael Black wrote: >> Why not just use an external speaker? In the old >> days, the better shortwave radios did that. > > That may be, but FM radios have better sound quality than short-wave > radios for reasons that a speaker won't help. > > FM signals have a high inherent noise immunity; short-wave broadcasts > come from the other side of the world, and have been repeatedly > subjected to the vagaries of the ionosphere. > Yes, but they are complaining about the sound on the AM broadcast or shortwave bands. I'm not talking about Joe Average (I have no idea what they think), this is people in rec.radio.shortwave where you'd think they cared more about selective receivers than "hifi sound". Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 21:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p8512d-k75.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #164156 |
In article <35921cde-3d66-4149-8ccc-422dae8fa436@googlegroups.com>, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 9:26:13 PM UTC-6, Michael Black wrote: >> Why not just use an external speaker? In the old >> days, the better shortwave radios did that. > >That may be, but FM radios have better sound quality than short-wave radios for >reasons that a speaker won't help. > >FM signals have a high inherent noise immunity; short-wave broadcasts come from the other side of the world, and have been >repeatedly subjected to the vagaries of the ionosphere. Also, the broadcast signal is a lot narrower on SW. In the very worst cases, like SSB, the frequency response is ~100-3500 Hz, much like a telephone line. The mandatory cutoff is at 5 kHz even on MW AM stations. The FM, however, has 50 or 100 kHz of bandwidth, but is expanded around 3:1 from the AM signal, so it should give at least 15 kHz worth of available bandwith. The stereo separation is at 19 kHz, with a 38 kHz subcarrier for the other channel. The S/N ratio is almost always better on FM, although in theory it could be better on AM. The Atmosphere is almost never that quiet. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 11:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2cfrkb5aqdf9jdr60qpa7k53js38om5oea@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #164143 |
On Mon, 30 May 2016 23:26:51 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >On Mon, 30 May 2016, Osmium wrote: > >> "Michael Black" wrote: >> >>> Some argue that other than for the audio people, there are enough tubes >>> around, for the few running the equipment, and for those who collect old >>> radios (but who might not use them regularly). >> >> There is a TV program that says that modern guitars have a purposely >> introduced distortion unique to vacuum tubes. The only *unique* distortion I >> know of is microphonics. I have listened to some of this alleged music but >> the sound is such a mess that I can't figure out what they are talking about. >> Can someone clarify this? It just sounds to me like they have too much audio >> power on too small a speaker. Like a 50 W amplifier, turned way up and >> driving a five inch speaker. >> >That's how they came up with "fuzz" (ie deliberate distortion), for a >while they just used a small amplifier and picked up the output with a >microphone, then someone came up with a little box that went between the >guitar and the sound system, that distorted without the complication. > >I don't really follow this stuff, but the topology used when transistors >(and later ICs) came along is different from tubes, so even without the >active devices being the cause, how they are used may be an issue. I seem >to recall something about tubes clipping signals differently from >transistors, so that may factor in too. Remember, the issue isn't >"perfect" audio, but a certain sound, so the tubes may be imperfect, but >the sound that they want. > >One small company offered tube sound, by seling a kit that was a stereo >preamp, using a triode or two per channel. So this got the audio through >a tube for that "tube sound" but didn't require lots of tubes or bulky >tube equipment. I don't remember if in reality it gave that 'tube sound" >or not. > >I see people dismiss shortwave radios "because the sound is bad". Of >ocurse it won't sound good, there's a tiny speaker in there. But they >decide that radio is no good, despite any features and benefits it has >over others, and would rather use a much cheaper radio that happens to >have a big speaker. Why not just use an external speaker? In the old >days, the better shortwave radios did that. > > > Michael I use a dsp filter to get rid of noise when I'm on my ham radio. Much easier to hear other pople. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 16:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nikfar11g7k@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #164143 |
On 2016-05-31, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: > I see people dismiss shortwave radios "because the sound is bad". Ironically, some of these people think that cell phones are the cat's meow, even though they often introduce phase distortion that (to me) makes them almost unlistenable. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 21:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <9l512d-k75.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #164165 |
In article <nikfar11g7k@news4.newsguy.com>, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >On 2016-05-31, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: > >> I see people dismiss shortwave radios "because the sound is bad". > >Ironically, some of these people think that cell phones are the >cat's meow, even though they often introduce phase distortion >that (to me) makes them almost unlistenable. So you can hear phase clearly? You know that this is pretty rare for humans? I have seend the quality of sound channels go bad, and it gets worse for every decade. In the 1970s we were all upping the sound quality with the HiFi systems that were better every year. This leveled off with the CD in the 1980s, and reached a peak somewhere in the late 1980s. Then we had GSM in 1993, and they went on with signal compression, half rate, phase compensation etc. that lead to people saying "what" around 5 times a minute even though they think they hear clearly when on a mobile call. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 20:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nikroa0tl6@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #164180 |
On 2016-05-31, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: > In article <nikfar11g7k@news4.newsguy.com>, > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > >> On 2016-05-31, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >> >>> I see people dismiss shortwave radios "because the sound is bad". >> >> Ironically, some of these people think that cell phones are the >> cat's meow, even though they often introduce phase distortion >> that (to me) makes them almost unlistenable. > > So you can hear phase clearly? You know that this is pretty > rare for humans? It's just a guess, actually. I hear an effect that sounds like two signals beating against each other, sort of like two notes that are close enough in frequency to each other that you can hear the difference tone as they heterodyne (or, if they're very close in frequency, a slow "wow" as they go in and out of phase). Whether the cell phone artifacts are phasing or something else is open to discussion - but whatever it is, I don't like it. > I have seend the quality of sound channels go bad, and it > gets worse for every decade. In the 1970s we were all upping > the sound quality with the HiFi systems that were better > every year. This leveled off with the CD in the 1980s, and > reached a peak somewhere in the late 1980s. Some of us were upping the sound quality in the '70s. But not all. The rest were going to cassettes, despite the inferior sound quality, because for them convenience trumps everything. > Then we had GSM in 1993, and they went on with signal > compression, half rate, phase compensation etc. that lead > to people saying "what" around 5 times a minute even though > they think they hear clearly when on a mobile call. But they're so _convenient_! Oh well, at least texting works reasonably well. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.imvalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 01:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <fij12d-kv5.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #164187 |
In article <nikroa0tl6@news6.newsguy.com>, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >On 2016-05-31, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: > >> In article <nikfar11g7k@news4.newsguy.com>, >> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 2016-05-31, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >>> >>>> I see people dismiss shortwave radios "because the sound is bad". >>> >>> Ironically, some of these people think that cell phones are the >>> cat's meow, even though they often introduce phase distortion >>> that (to me) makes them almost unlistenable. >> >> So you can hear phase clearly? You know that this is pretty >> rare for humans? > >It's just a guess, actually. I hear an effect that sounds like >two signals beating against each other, sort of like two notes >that are close enough in frequency to each other that you can >hear the difference tone as they heterodyne (or, if they're >very close in frequency, a slow "wow" as they go in and out >of phase). Whether the cell phone artifacts are phasing or >something else is open to discussion - but whatever it is, >I don't like it. Can it be the GSM symbols that pass by? Aroynd 60 per second; like playing out short tidbits of audio. GSM will degrade to this when bandwith gets bad. >> I have seend the quality of sound channels go bad, and it >> gets worse for every decade. In the 1970s we were all upping >> the sound quality with the HiFi systems that were better >> every year. This leveled off with the CD in the 1980s, and >> reached a peak somewhere in the late 1980s. > >Some of us were upping the sound quality in the '70s. But not >all. The rest were going to cassettes, despite the inferior >sound quality, because for them convenience trumps everything. The cassettes were ALSO upping audio quality, just not as much. >> Then we had GSM in 1993, and they went on with signal >> compression, half rate, phase compensation etc. that lead >> to people saying "what" around 5 times a minute even though >> they think they hear clearly when on a mobile call. > >But they're so _convenient_! > >Oh well, at least texting works reasonably well. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 00:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nil9ac02298@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #164193 |
On 2016-05-31, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.imvalid> wrote: > In article <nikroa0tl6@news6.newsguy.com>, > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > >> On 2016-05-31, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: >> >>> In article <nikfar11g7k@news4.newsguy.com>, >>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2016-05-31, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I see people dismiss shortwave radios "because the sound is bad". >>>> >>>> Ironically, some of these people think that cell phones are the >>>> cat's meow, even though they often introduce phase distortion >>>> that (to me) makes them almost unlistenable. >>> >>> So you can hear phase clearly? You know that this is pretty >>> rare for humans? >> >> It's just a guess, actually. I hear an effect that sounds like >> two signals beating against each other, sort of like two notes >> that are close enough in frequency to each other that you can >> hear the difference tone as they heterodyne (or, if they're >> very close in frequency, a slow "wow" as they go in and out >> of phase). Whether the cell phone artifacts are phasing or >> something else is open to discussion - but whatever it is, >> I don't like it. > > Can it be the GSM symbols that pass by? Aroynd 60 per > second; like playing out short tidbits of audio. GSM will > degrade to this when bandwith gets bad. That doesn't seem like it. The sound is continuously bad, and varying in a very irritating way. Maybe it's some sort of sampling artifact, or a product of aliasing. >>> I have seend the quality of sound channels go bad, and it >>> gets worse for every decade. In the 1970s we were all upping >>> the sound quality with the HiFi systems that were better >>> every year. This leveled off with the CD in the 1980s, and >>> reached a peak somewhere in the late 1980s. >> >> Some of us were upping the sound quality in the '70s. But not >> all. The rest were going to cassettes, despite the inferior >> sound quality, because for them convenience trumps everything. > > The cassettes were ALSO upping audio quality, just not as > much. Yes, I remember those Nakamichi decks. But generally, cassettes were a big step down from existing vinyl records and reel-to-reel tapes. Compared to a 1/4-inch 4-track tape running at 7 1/2 inches per second, a cassette has an inherent 9dB disadvantage in signal-to-noise ratio - Dolby just made up the difference. And getting decent high-frequency response out of cassettes wasn't easy. But a lot of people didn't care as long as they could turn it up loud. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last,name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 08:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <39c22d-2s6.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #164194 |
In article <nil9ac02298@news3.newsguy.com>, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >On 2016-05-31, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.imvalid> wrote: > >> In article <nikroa0tl6@news6.newsguy.com>, >> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 2016-05-31, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> In article <nikfar11g7k@news4.newsguy.com>, >>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2016-05-31, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I see people dismiss shortwave radios "because the sound is bad". >>>>> >>>>> Ironically, some of these people think that cell phones are the >>>>> cat's meow, even though they often introduce phase distortion >>>>> that (to me) makes them almost unlistenable. >>>> >>>> So you can hear phase clearly? You know that this is pretty >>>> rare for humans? >>> >>> It's just a guess, actually. I hear an effect that sounds like >>> two signals beating against each other, sort of like two notes >>> that are close enough in frequency to each other that you can >>> hear the difference tone as they heterodyne (or, if they're >>> very close in frequency, a slow "wow" as they go in and out >>> of phase). Whether the cell phone artifacts are phasing or >>> something else is open to discussion - but whatever it is, >>> I don't like it. >> >> Can it be the GSM symbols that pass by? Aroynd 60 per >> second; like playing out short tidbits of audio. GSM will >> degrade to this when bandwith gets bad. > >That doesn't seem like it. The sound is continuously bad, >and varying in a very irritating way. Maybe it's some sort >of sampling artifact, or a product of aliasing. The GSM codec analyses the sound for speech phonemes, and encodes these as a ~1200(must look it up for exact figures) bps stream. This is just machine speech as it comes out in the other end. It should be barely legible for slow and clear speech; but you will not hear who is speaking. These flow at ~60 per second (every 20 ms plus some extras). Then the difference, both in normal sound and in the fourier-space (frequencies) are added for a total of 13.600 bps. These are separate data streams, and the network protects the symbols a lot more than they protect the differences. The idea is that the inevitable dropouts will spound a lot better if the symbols get through and you apply the last fourier-correction to them. Very simplified explanation, but it gets the gist of it. And I took the numbers from memory. But it makes the total sound image _very_ weird. But 2/3rds of humanity have gotten used to this by now. >>>> I have seend the quality of sound channels go bad, and it >>>> gets worse for every decade. In the 1970s we were all upping >>>> the sound quality with the HiFi systems that were better >>>> every year. This leveled off with the CD in the 1980s, and >>>> reached a peak somewhere in the late 1980s. >>> >>> Some of us were upping the sound quality in the '70s. But not >>> all. The rest were going to cassettes, despite the inferior >>> sound quality, because for them convenience trumps everything. >> >> The cassettes were ALSO upping audio quality, just not as >> much. > >Yes, I remember those Nakamichi decks. But generally, cassettes >were a big step down from existing vinyl records and reel-to-reel >tapes. Compared to a 1/4-inch 4-track tape running at 7 1/2 >inches per second, a cassette has an inherent 9dB disadvantage >in signal-to-noise ratio - Dolby just made up the difference. >And getting decent high-frequency response out of cassettes >wasn't easy. > >But a lot of people didn't care as long as they could turn it up loud. And Loud, LOUD, **LOUD** without breaking the bank was a new thing with transistorised components (really, thyristors) in the two last amp stages ca 1972. This made a **LOUD** playback that didn't distort much available to the general public. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 06:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31b883ae210e553198a1f6@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164214 |
In article <39c22d-2s6.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>, first@last says... > > In article <nil9ac02298@news3.newsguy.com>, > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > >On 2016-05-31, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.imvalid> wrote: > > > >> In article <nikroa0tl6@news6.newsguy.com>, > >> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > >> > >>> On 2016-05-31, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: > >>> > >>>> In article <nikfar11g7k@news4.newsguy.com>, > >>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 2016-05-31, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> I see people dismiss shortwave radios "because the sound is bad". > >>>>> > >>>>> Ironically, some of these people think that cell phones are the > >>>>> cat's meow, even though they often introduce phase distortion > >>>>> that (to me) makes them almost unlistenable. > >>>> > >>>> So you can hear phase clearly? You know that this is pretty > >>>> rare for humans? > >>> > >>> It's just a guess, actually. I hear an effect that sounds like > >>> two signals beating against each other, sort of like two notes > >>> that are close enough in frequency to each other that you can > >>> hear the difference tone as they heterodyne (or, if they're > >>> very close in frequency, a slow "wow" as they go in and out > >>> of phase). Whether the cell phone artifacts are phasing or > >>> something else is open to discussion - but whatever it is, > >>> I don't like it. > >> > >> Can it be the GSM symbols that pass by? Aroynd 60 per > >> second; like playing out short tidbits of audio. GSM will > >> degrade to this when bandwith gets bad. > > > >That doesn't seem like it. The sound is continuously bad, > >and varying in a very irritating way. Maybe it's some sort > >of sampling artifact, or a product of aliasing. > > The GSM codec analyses the sound for speech phonemes, and encodes > these as a ~1200(must look it up for exact figures) bps stream. This > is just machine speech as it comes out in the other end. It should > be barely legible for slow and clear speech; but you will not hear > who is speaking. These flow at ~60 per second (every 20 ms plus some > extras). > > Then the difference, both in normal sound and in the fourier-space > (frequencies) are added for a total of 13.600 bps. > > These are separate data streams, and the network protects the > symbols a lot more than they protect the differences. The idea is > that the inevitable dropouts will spound a lot better if the > symbols get through and you apply the last fourier-correction to them. > > Very simplified explanation, but it gets the gist of it. And I > took the numbers from memory. > > But it makes the total sound image _very_ weird. But 2/3rds > of humanity have gotten used to this by now. I don't know what you're on about. When I talk to people on my cell phone, which is an 80 buck burner, not anything fancy, I have no problem recognizing them by voice, accents come through clearly (I work with Poles and Chinese, my GF is from the deep South, my best friend is British--lots of accents in my life), generally speaking I don't notice any difference between what comes over the cell and what comes over the analog land line. Maybe it's time for you to upgrade your phone. Or maybe wherever you live the cell system is just crap. > >>>> I have seend the quality of sound channels go bad, and it > >>>> gets worse for every decade. In the 1970s we were all upping > >>>> the sound quality with the HiFi systems that were better > >>>> every year. This leveled off with the CD in the 1980s, and > >>>> reached a peak somewhere in the late 1980s. > >>> > >>> Some of us were upping the sound quality in the '70s. But not > >>> all. The rest were going to cassettes, despite the inferior > >>> sound quality, because for them convenience trumps everything. > >> > >> The cassettes were ALSO upping audio quality, just not as > >> much. > > > >Yes, I remember those Nakamichi decks. But generally, cassettes > >were a big step down from existing vinyl records and reel-to-reel > >tapes. Compared to a 1/4-inch 4-track tape running at 7 1/2 > >inches per second, a cassette has an inherent 9dB disadvantage > >in signal-to-noise ratio - Dolby just made up the difference. > >And getting decent high-frequency response out of cassettes > >wasn't easy. > > > >But a lot of people didn't care as long as they could turn it up loud. > > And Loud, LOUD, **LOUD** without breaking the bank was a new thing > with transistorised components (really, thyristors) in the two last amp > stages ca 1972. > > This made a **LOUD** playback that didn't distort much available to > the general public. > > -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 12:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ntftkblb5sulljlsjiq15kgd5smn01t5qm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #164224 |
On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 06:32:00 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >From: "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> >Subject: Re: [BBC] US nuclear force 'still uses floppy disks' > >In article <39c22d-2s6.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>, first@last says... >> >> In article <nil9ac02298@news3.newsguy.com>, >> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >> >On 2016-05-31, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.imvalid> wrote: >> > >> >> In article <nikroa0tl6@news6.newsguy.com>, >> >> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 2016-05-31, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> In article <nikfar11g7k@news4.newsguy.com>, >> >>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> On 2016-05-31, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> I see people dismiss shortwave radios "because the sound is bad". >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Ironically, some of these people think that cell phones are the >> >>>>> cat's meow, even though they often introduce phase distortion >> >>>>> that (to me) makes them almost unlistenable. >> >>>> >> >>>> So you can hear phase clearly? You know that this is pretty >> >>>> rare for humans? >> >>> >> >>> It's just a guess, actually. I hear an effect that sounds like >> >>> two signals beating against each other, sort of like two notes >> >>> that are close enough in frequency to each other that you can >> >>> hear the difference tone as they heterodyne (or, if they're >> >>> very close in frequency, a slow "wow" as they go in and out >> >>> of phase). Whether the cell phone artifacts are phasing or >> >>> something else is open to discussion - but whatever it is, >> >>> I don't like it. >> >> >> >> Can it be the GSM symbols that pass by? Aroynd 60 per >> >> second; like playing out short tidbits of audio. GSM will >> >> degrade to this when bandwith gets bad. >> > >> >That doesn't seem like it. The sound is continuously bad, >> >and varying in a very irritating way. Maybe it's some sort >> >of sampling artifact, or a product of aliasing. >> >> The GSM codec analyses the sound for speech phonemes, and encodes >> these as a ~1200(must look it up for exact figures) bps stream. This >> is just machine speech as it comes out in the other end. It should >> be barely legible for slow and clear speech; but you will not hear >> who is speaking. These flow at ~60 per second (every 20 ms plus some >> extras). >> >> Then the difference, both in normal sound and in the fourier-space >> (frequencies) are added for a total of 13.600 bps. >> >> These are separate data streams, and the network protects the >> symbols a lot more than they protect the differences. The idea is >> that the inevitable dropouts will spound a lot better if the >> symbols get through and you apply the last fourier-correction to them. >> >> Very simplified explanation, but it gets the gist of it. And I >> took the numbers from memory. >> >> But it makes the total sound image _very_ weird. But 2/3rds >> of humanity have gotten used to this by now. > >I don't know what you're on about. When I talk to people on my cell >phone, which is an 80 buck burner, not anything fancy, I have no problem >recognizing them by voice, accents come through clearly (I work with >Poles and Chinese, my GF is from the deep South, my best friend is >British--lots of accents in my life), generally speaking I don't notice >any difference between what comes over the cell and what comes over the >analog land line. > >Maybe it's time for you to upgrade your phone. Or maybe wherever you >live the cell system is just crap. In my experience cell phones did sound better than line phones but both are digital they sound the same. Steve -- Neural Network Software for Windows http://www.npsnn.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 17:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nin6p00ipl@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #164229 |
On 2016-06-01, Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> wrote: > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 06:32:00 -0400, "J. Clarke" > <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I don't know what you're on about. When I talk to people on my cell >> phone, which is an 80 buck burner, not anything fancy, I have no problem >> recognizing them by voice, accents come through clearly (I work with >> Poles and Chinese, my GF is from the deep South, my best friend is >> British--lots of accents in my life), generally speaking I don't notice >> any difference between what comes over the cell and what comes over the >> analog land line. >> >> Maybe it's time for you to upgrade your phone. Or maybe wherever you >> live the cell system is just crap. > > In my experience cell phones did sound better than line phones but > both are digital they sound the same. Maybe it's regional thing. I have no difficulty telling a cell phone from a land line, even when listening to a news broadcast or call-in show on radio or TV where they're relaying a call from someone who is phoning in. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web