Am I the only one astonished by the garbage quality of phone

>>59380132

iPhones and macOS doesn't have that problem

The clear lines dollar. That's a good one. I see good fortune coming your way nigger.

Are you a plumber? How do we fix the phone lines?

>>59380132
I was thinking about it another day and i concluded that this don't actually matter because you don't need to save all the recordings and stuff, only listen one time, it's a ephemeral thing.
>>59380163
Fuck you

I call using my fridge. It has a built in coin phone.

>>59380222
Can you send fax using a typewriter?

>>59380235
Only if it's been dry out for more than 4 days. I hate copper birds.

>>59380235
Fucking negro. Typwriters can't sent faxes.

>>59380132
areas with shitty cell recepotion still use gsm. so shitty quality comes from people in bumfuck nowhere and old farts on ptsn.

if you actually talk to someone with a <5 yr old phone with good cell reception ull notice call quality is pretty good

>>59380132
Your operator routes all your calls thru India and Africa. It is cheaper for them. Maybe you should get a better subscription.

>>59380132
The codecs and data rates used for phone calls are very poor and these standards are not easily changed. Internet calls are a modern solution but you need good coverage and data connection for those to work.

>>59380132
Because calling over 2G (what everything does) has a data limit rate of 40 kbit/s in practice. Which is shit quality.

>>59380562
>40 kbit/s
40 Kilo bits per second for voice is shit?

>>59380575
You do know that 40 kbit/s is 5 KB/s (kilo BYTES)? You device it by 8. And yes, 5 KB/s is absolute garbage. It's actually so bad they actually cut off part of the Hz spectrum.

>>59380592
So yeah. I repeat myself. 40 Kilo bits per second, for VOICE, is bad?

>>59380562
People still use 2G?

>>59380615
try reading, retard

>>59380615
yes, it's shit

I don't think hd voice works across providers

>>59380562
>Because calling over 2G (what everything does) has a data limit rate of 40 kbit/s in practice. Which is shit quality.

It's not just that. The codec used is shit.

If they used Opus, they would sound pretty clear.

>>59380675
You're obviously a retard. 40 kilobits per second to carry voice is more than enough. But perhaps your fat burger clap needs more so you feel it matches your ego. Goddamn. 40 kbits/s for voice. Are you a retard?

>>59380733
>more than enough
explain the existence of the military alphabet

>>59380771
Why? What needs to be sent over a line that requires 40 kilobits/s? If it's voice, that way more than necessary. a decade ago people made crisp calls over GSM using only 10 mb/s. What kind of retardation is this?

>>59380733
That wasn't the anon that started the convo, but its NOT enough you fucking fag. Like I said, they actually cut off part of the Hz spectrum because there isn't enough data. If you suddenly miss frequency that you're accustomed to hear in person, it's understandable as shit through that shitty data stream + shitty phone speaker. HD voice was created for a reason.

>>59380803
They just cut off parts of the spectrum that exceed 20 KHz and lower than 20 Hz. Because it's shit we cannot even hear. But even if you didn't compress the data, 40 kbits/s would still be plenty more than enough.

>>59380830
Alright anon, you have a good time with your YouTube audio level quality.

>>59380850
lmao. Literally no argument.

what are you 2 doing with your lives lmao

>>59380857
Have you ever heard of the Nyquist sampling theorem? The theorem states that the sampling rate of digital audio needs to be at least twice the frequency of the highest pitch you're willing to record. Telephone calls are usually sampled at 8Khz. This is where sibilant phonemes become a problem as they're pitch is usually at a frequency much higher than 4khz

>>59380857
>Full-HD Voice supports the entire bandwidth range from 20 Hz to 20 kHz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_over_LTE

I'm not in the mood to search the net for more info but this implies that normal 2G calling does not.

>>59380132
its because cell networks use speech formant encoding/decoding.

>>59380830
> exceed 20 KHz and lower than 20 Hz
telephones calls cut out more than that

Actual electrical engineer here

Normal cellphone calls do not have a guaranteed bandwidth. It depends on your connection strength to the tower.
Both cell networks and phones have an expanding set of supported codecs, which are fairly easily added, and your phone will automatically switch to higher compression (and worse quality) codecs when it detects that your connection to the tower is bad.

It is not at all uncommon to get 6kbps call bandwidth, and your available frequency range is going to be nowhere near audible frequencies since intelligible voice always falls in the mid/low range.

With standard call formats (aka not HD-Voice or whatever), you'll get a frequency range of about 300Hz-3.5KHz, probably compressed into 4 to 10kbps depending on your connection strength.

>>59380926
These fricative consonants get aliased/mangled. But the NT guarantees that everything that's lower in frequency doesn't.

>>59380132
Should just use VOIP over 4G. TCP/IP ensures lossless data transmission fairly well.

>>59381445
If you don't need a phone number, then yes.

>>59381680
You can have a phone number with VOIP