Bill Berbenich <bill@eedsp.gatech.edu> (07/11/90)
I was just reminded of one of my pet telecom peeves. Ever get on the phone with someone and have them just barely whisper instead of speakly clearly and plainly? I said, "would you please speak up, I can just barely hear you." The person's voice would get louder - I could tell that he was speaking in a full, clear voice then and I knew that it wasn't just a bad connection. Anyway, after a few sentences, ole soft-voice would slip back into the whisper. "Please speak up?" audible, audible, whisper, "please speak up, I cannot hear you?" audible, audible, audible, whisper... and so on throughout the ten minute (five minutes in an audible voice) conversation. Aaarrrggghhhh. :-) It wasn't even a 'confidential' matter. Anyone else had this happen to them? Bill Berbenich
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (07/14/90)
In <9649@accuvax.nwu.edu> Bill Berbenich <bill@eedsp.gatech.edu> writes: > I was just reminded of one of my pet telecom peeves. Ever get on the > phone with someone and have them just barely whisper instead of > speakly clearly and plainly? Yeah, drives me nuts. Speakerphone freaks do the same thing. I once had dealings with a lawyer who loved his speaker phone. Only problem, it sounded at this end like he was sitting in the bottom of a well with a sack on his head. At the rates he was charging, I damn well didn't want to waste his time asking him to repeat himself. I eventually got into the habit of automatically saying "Hi Bob, turn off the speaker phone", when he called. Related question: anybody know how to deal with phones in a noisy environment like a machine room. Apparantly people can hear me speaking just fine when I'm in there, but I have a hell of a time hearing them over the roar of the fans. Repeated requests to "please talk louder, I can't hear you over the fans" get the same results as Bill reports. The problem is room noise picked up in the mouthpiece and heard through my earpiece (is sidetone the right term for that?) If I cup my hand over the mouthpiece, I can hear fine, but that's a real drag. I think what I want is a push-to-talk handset, but havn't been able to fine any. Any suggestions? Also, I'm deaf in one ear. It always seemed to me that in situations like talking on the phone in a noisy place, that was actually an advantage instead of a handicap since I don't have to filter out ambient noise from the other ear. Do double-hearing people find that noise in the non-phone ear is a real problem, or does the brain automatically just filter it out? I watch people at phone booths in the subway. Sometimes I see them covering the other ear with one hand, but sometimes they don't seem to bother. Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy
John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> (07/15/90)
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > The problem is room noise picked up in the mouthpiece > and heard through my earpiece (is sidetone the right term for that?) > If I cup my hand over the mouthpiece, I can hear fine, but that's a > real drag. I think what I want is a push-to-talk handset, but havn't > been able to fine any. Any suggestions? Push-to-talk is a common way of dealing with this, but there is another known as the "confidencer". It is a special network that eliminates sidetone so that noise entering through the mouthpiece won't be heard in the earpiece. Yet another method is to obtain a "noise cancelling" mouthpiece. These are relatively easy to find to fit the standard (pre "K" style) handsets. > Do double-hearing people > find that noise in the non-phone ear is a real problem, or does the > brain automatically just filter it out? The brain filters it out. It is very amusing to watch people in a noisy location jamming a finger in the opposite ear. That technique does little good when the real problem is noise entering through the mouthpiece. At one of my transmitter sites, there is a standard phone that I have been too lazy to modify. When making calls in the noisy room, covering my other ear has virtually no effect on intelligibility, but cupping my hand over the mouthpiece makes all the difference in the world. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
ergo@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Isaac Rabinovitch) (07/15/90)
In <9712@accuvax.nwu.edu> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: >In <9649@accuvax.nwu.edu> Bill Berbenich <bill@eedsp.gatech.edu> >writes: >The problem is room noise picked up in the mouthpiece >and heard through my earpiece (is sidetone the right term for that?) >If I cup my hand over the mouthpiece, I can hear fine, but that's a >real drag. I think what I want is a push-to-talk handset, but havn't >been able to fine any. Any suggestions? About a year ago, one of those yuppie electrotoy catalogs featured a phone with *no* mouthpiece; it gets your voice from jawbone vibrations! DAK sells walkie-talkies built on the same principle. I dimly recall seeing a TV article on the invention of such technology -- this was long ago, and it's original use was for helicopter intercoms during the Vietnam War. Never seen it in stores, though, and I've no idea whether it actually works. > Also, I'm deaf in one ear. It always seemed to me that in >situations like talking on the phone in a noisy place, that was >actually an advantage instead of a handicap since I don't have to >filter out ambient noise from the other ear. Do double-hearing people >find that noise in the non-phone ear is a real problem, or does the >brain automatically just filter it out? I watch people at phone >booths in the subway. Sometimes I see them covering the other ear >with one hand, but sometimes they don't seem to bother. Most people are good at filtering out sounds they don't want to hear; a minority (including me) is bad at it. For obvious reasons, there is much conflict between these two groups of people. ergo@netcom.uucp Isaac Rabinovitch atina!pyramid!apple!netcom!ergo Silicon Valley, CA uunet!mimsy!ames!claris!netcom!ergo
syd@dsi.com (Syd Weinstein) (07/15/90)
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > Related question: anybody know how to deal with phones in a >noisy environment like a machine room. ... >The problem is room noise picked up in the mouthpiece >and heard through my earpiece (is sidetone the right term for that?) This is a simple one, there is a product called the confidencer, available from lots of places including hello-direct. On the handsets in our machine room, I have placed the handsets with the amplifier (turn up the knob if its too noisy) and the confidencer (it replaces the mic) so that the noise doesn't feed back in. You have to hold your mouth real close for it to be heard (over two inches is like you're across the room, over six and forget it. Works great, they make models for carbon and electronic mics. The confidencer is about $35. I got my amplified handsets from a catalog distributor for about $10-20 each, but they are readly available anywhere for about $50-60 :-). Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900 syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235
king@uunet.uu.net (Steven King) (07/16/90)
In article <9718@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> writes: >roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: >> Do double-hearing people >> find that noise in the non-phone ear is a real problem, or does the >> brain automatically just filter it out? >The brain filters it out. It is very amusing to watch people in a >noisy location jamming a finger in the opposite ear. That technique >does little good when the real problem is noise entering through the >mouthpiece. At one of my transmitter sites, there is a standard phone >that I have been too lazy to modify. When making calls in the noisy >room, covering my other ear has virtually no effect on >intelligibility, but cupping my hand over the mouthpiece makes all the >difference in the world. Speak for yourself. The mouthpiece on the phone at home picks up much less ambient noise than my other ear does. I can't vouch for machinery noise (droning fans and whatnot) but jamming a finger in my ear helps considerably in blocking background conversation. Actually, those of us with stereoscopic hearing (holy mixed metaphors, Batman!) can filter out a great deal of noise coming in the other ear, just like you sucessfully filter out the image of your nose that one eye sees when looking to the extreme right or left. It's only in extreme circumstances (like a raucous gaming run going on in the background) that I have to block the other ear. Steve King, Motorola Cellular (...uunet!motcid!king)
gs26@prism.gatech.edu (Glenn R. Stone) (07/17/90)
In <9729@accuvax.nwu.edu> claris!netcom!ergo@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Isaac Rabinovitch) writes: >About a year ago, one of those yuppie electrotoy catalogs featured a >phone with *no* mouthpiece; it gets your voice from jawbone >vibrations! DAK sells walkie-talkies built on the same principle. I >dimly recall seeing a TV article on the invention of such technology > -- this was long ago, and it's original use was for helicopter >intercoms during the Vietnam War. Never seen it in stores, though, >and I've no idea whether it actually works. Heh. This idea goes back to WWII, when standard Navy issue was a throat mike... you can see 'em if your local TV station syndicates "Black Sheep Squadron" (usually late nite). They hadn't come up with the idea of a noise-cancelling mike yet, and it was/is pretty hard to soundproof against 2000+hp and a thirteen-foot prop going near-transonic an armspan or two from your nose (in the case of the Corsair). I've never heard one in action, so I don't know how well it worked, but it seems to have got us thru the war, so there must be something there. Glenn R. Stone gs26@prism.gatech.edu
sys0001@relay.eu.net (07/20/90)
In article <9649@accuvax.nwu.edu> Bill Berbenich <bill@eedsp.gatech. edu> writes: >I was just reminded of one of my pet telecom peeves. Ever get on the >phone with someone and have them just barely whisper instead of >speakly clearly and plainly? One thing that drives me up the wall is when the person on the other end of the phone holds the handset so the microphone part is under their chin instead of in front of their mouth. I've seen many people doing this (when I've been in their office and they've taken a call). Don't they realise that they should speak directly into the mouthpiece for the best transmission? sys0001@dircon.UUCP or sys0001%dircon@ukc.ac.uk
hale@ucsd.edu (Bob Hale) (07/26/90)
In article <9788@accuvax.nwu.edu> gs26@prism.gatech.edu (Glenn R. Stone) writes: >I've never heard one in action, so I don't know how well it worked, >but it seems to have got us thru the war, so there must be something >there. The fidelity of a throat microphone is *awful*, to the point where it impairs intelligibility. I'm speaking of the war surplus ones that I used to be able to buy in the surplus stores in Southern California in the late 50's. Maybe the technology has improved but I'd have to hear it to believe it. Bob Hale ...!ucsd!btree!hale 619-535-3234 ...!btree!hale@ucsd.edu
rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) (07/30/90)
In article <9974@accuvax.nwu.edu> sys0001%dircon@ukc.ac.uk writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 502, Message 10 of 15 >One thing that drives me up the wall is when the person on the other >end of the phone holds the handset so the microphone part is under >their chin instead of in front of their mouth. >I've seen many people doing this (when I've been in their office and >they've taken a call). Don't they realise that they should speak >directly into the mouthpiece for the best transmission? No, in fact, the best (cleanest) transmission is achieved by placing the mouthpiece directly in front of your CHIN, slightly *below* your mouth. The reason is that by doing so you eliminate the very annoying excessive pickup of certain sounds like "s" and "p". The effect is even more pronounced with your average garden-variety microphone used, for example, in a high school auditorium. Linc Madison = rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu
Julian Macassey <julian@bongo.uucp> (07/31/90)
In article <10245@accuvax.nwu.edu>, rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) writes: > In article <9974@accuvax.nwu.edu> sys0001%dircon@ukc.ac.uk writes: > X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 502, Message 10 of 15 > >One thing that drives me up the wall is when the person on the other > >end of the phone holds the handset so the microphone part is under > >their chin instead of in front of their mouth. > >I've seen many people doing this (when I've been in their office and > >they've taken a call). Don't they realise that they should speak > >directly into the mouthpiece for the best transmission? > No, in fact, the best (cleanest) transmission is achieved by placing > the mouthpiece directly in front of your CHIN, slightly *below* your > mouth. The reason is that by doing so you eliminate the very annoying > excessive pickup of certain sounds like "s" and "p". The effect is > even more pronounced with your average garden-variety microphone used, > for example, in a high school auditorium. Well, believe it or not, the first poster is right about telephones. Yet, the second poster is right about using PA or recording mics with dynamic, electret or condenser elements, talking directly into the element will cause popping and essing. Telephone microphones of "transmitters" in telco-speak are designed to be talked into. This is true with both U.S. (Bell) and CCITT (E.U.) standards. For best results, when on the phone talk into the microphone. A telephone handset is tested on a device called an artificial head. The transducer in the artificial head is set up at a specified distance from the mouthpiece and aimed directly at it. In fact the dimensions of Bell and CCITT handsets are carefully spelt out, I can't find all these docs right now, so most of this stuff is from memory. Most of these test devices are built by Bruel & Kjaer a Danish company. There are normally two types of transmitters used in handsets, carbon and electret. One notable exception is the GNT F78 Danish phone which has a dynamic element. The carbon element has a threshold effect which means the sensitivity drops off rapidly as the sound source moves away from it. This is useful for attenuating room noise, but as the first poster notes, it also means that if you don't speak into the transmitter the voice will be weak and indistinct. Electret transmitters are more sensitive so are more likely to pickup snide comments from bystanders in the background, so the "It's your boring mother" type asides can be clearly heard. A well designed handset using an electret will be well enough damped to avoid essing if spoken into directly. So please speak into the mouthpiece, that's where the element is. Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian N6ARE@K6IYK (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495