voice filter

[beejay]

Ref. OHIO M.A.R.C.S transmissions.

Mobiles are clear but dispatchers many times blend into back-ground racket.

Has any of you thought about some form of tone control/voice freq. filter etc.

in order to clarify the dispatchers?

Been in this game since 1960's / still not completely sold on digital at the hobby

price level but that's another story.

BEEJAY

 

[jonwienke]

There's not much you can do, other than a bit of EQ if you want to run the scanner into an external mixer. If dispatch has their mike set too hot and it is picking up background noise, there's not much you can do. It's not a digital problem, it's user error.

Digital is here to stay, and as time goes on, even more so. You can either adapt or quit.

 

[oracavon]

There are inexpensive "communications speakers" which basically pass through voice fequencies and roll off other frequencies. They plug in to the external speaker jack. Not sure if they would help with OHIO MARCS in particular, but they might be worth a try. I have used them in the past, and they did clarify voices, although they sounded a little stange - sort of a lack of depth quality to the sound. They worked well in noisy environments like cars, emphasizing the voices without having to crank up the volume. You can get them fairly cheap on ebay.

 

[jonwienke]

That is just a crappy form of EQ. Radio already limits audio frequencies to those used by voice--approximately 100-4000Hz for digital and 300-4000Hz for analog.. Limiting that further does not improve general audio quality.

 

[oracavon]

That is just a crappy form of EQ. Radio already limits audio frequencies to those used by voice--approximately 100-4000Hz for digital and 300-4000Hz for analog.. Limiting that further does not improve general audio quality.

Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but my personal experience indicates otherwise. In my case, it made a significant difference in voice intelligibility. So it's reasonable to suggest that it may help others as well. Theory is one thing, personal experience is another. There is no legitimate reason to discourage others from trying it to see if it helps them.

 

[vagrant]

Digital is here to stay, and as time goes on, even more so. You can either adapt or quit.

You advised to adapt and when someone posted as much you criticized it.

At this point in the hobby I am well aware that people have differences in what and how they like to hear audio transmissions. I applaud those that recommend trying alternatives, but your "...quit" ultimatum is a bit much. As an amateur radio operator I promote experimentation because as people are different, so are their respective environments and operating gear. An EQ and or various speakers are good suggestions.

Analog is also here to stay as well as digital. I do not have a complaint about digital narrow as much as I do with the equipment on the TX side. Fortunately things are improving in that area. I have found the Kenwood NX-5300 TX audio to be quite pleasant to my ears, especially with nice and narrow DMR. Clearly manufactures realize they need to improve as well.

 

[jonwienke]

Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but my personal experience indicates otherwise. In my case, it made a significant difference in voice intelligibility. So it's reasonable to suggest that it may help others as well. Theory is one thing, personal experience is another. There is no legitimate reason to discourage others from trying it to see if it helps them.

The problem is that EQing frequencies away by narrowing the audio frequency response is more likely to make audio less intelligible, rather than more so. There is the occasional exception, but in general, hearing less of the original signal detracts from intelligibility. So as a general principle, it's bad advice.

 

[jonwienke]

You advised to adapt and when someone posted as much you criticized it.

The point I was making is that the use of digital is on the increase, in the public safety, business, and amateur sectors, and refusing to embrace digital will result in what you can hear gradually dwindling to next to nothing.

 

[vagrant]

...refusing to embrace digital will result in what you can hear gradually dwindling to next to nothing.

Really, next to nothing? While digital is increasing, the either/or fallacies you keep using are unfair to those that do not know any better and read this thread. Should you have an analysis on which you based your point, specifically about "...next to nothing" I would like to review it. There are many things I am not aware of.

It may be beneficial to embrace digital but not necessary. Remember, you recommended adaptation. That means the person could also adapt to hear less digital and enjoy analog rather than quit. The RF spectrum is pretty big and there is quite a bit of analog out there in all sectors.

Hmm...I wonder what the percentages are of analog versus digital. Some sectors embraced digital early on and it did not work to expectations. Others have yet to experience it.

 

[jonwienke]

It may be beneficial to embrace digital but not necessary.

If the fire department you've been monitoring switches from analog to P25, you have two choices: switch to digital to continue monitoring, or stop monitoring. You're not going to persuade them to switch back by whining. The majority of public safety is now digital, and there is no reason to believe that the trend will reverse itself. Business and amateur radio are not yet majority digital, but digital has had huge growth in the last 5 years, and the rate of adoption is increasing, particularly with DMR. In another 5-10 years, analog FM is going to become fairly rare across the board. I doubt it will ever go away completely, but it's about to become the vinyl record of radio technology.

 

[vagrant]

I got curious about the numbers so I pulled and noted results from the RR database.

(Worldwide digital from RR)
P25 = 8475
DMR = 7609
NXDN = 1227
D-STAR = 372
———————
17,683


FM = 9,584 just from California (This includes FMN)

 

[jonwienke]

Is that systems, frequencies, or users?

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

The problem is that EQing frequencies away by narrowing the audio frequency response is more likely to make audio less intelligible, rather than more so. There is the occasional exception, but in general, hearing less of the original signal detracts from intelligibility. So as a general principle, it's bad advice.

You are making a presumption that the speaker audio is flat, or even reasonably reproduces the voice spectrum. I have a BCD536HP and I find the internal speaker is awful, especially since it is fired downward at my desk (yes even when propped with the bracket). My solution is a Motorola Spectra speaker terminated in a phone plug. Even then, some dispatch audio is incoherent,

The fact is that the P25 audio is very constrained 8n dynamic range and the Vocoder is intolerant of background sounds.

Oddly, at times the reproduction is perfect, which points to the various limitations of P25 , especially in Simulcast.


Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

If the fire department you've been monitoring switches from analog to P25, you have two choices: switch to digital to continue monitoring, or stop monitoring. You're not going to persuade them to switch back by whining. The majority of public safety is now digital, and there is no reason to believe that the trend will reverse itself. Business and amateur radio are not yet majority digital, but digital has had huge growth in the last 5 years, and the rate of adoption is increasing, particularly with DMR. In another 5-10 years, analog FM is going to become fairly rare across the board. I doubt it will ever go away completely, but it's about to become the vinyl record of radio technology.

Analog FM is not going away in 5 years, let alone 10.

It will remain the default in mutual aid and fire services.

The only thing threatening to kill FM is narrow band, but the mode cannot be beat for intelligibility and simplicity of deployment.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk