![]() Hmm, instead of trying (unsuccessfully) to convey on-hold music, how about the system reads you Shakespeare sonnets. Or I suppose on-hold music could always be a cappella songs. I suppose on-hold music could be composed in a way to better survive phone transmission, but it would have to be very voice-like. And that cost could never be justified - aside from on-hold music, how often do the systems convey music? A system that could successfully convey both would require way too much transmission bandwidth, engineering finesse, and industry cooperation (ie. In the quest to optimize the system for speech, music is screwed. That can make music sound even more weird. For example, some systems are not only optimized for speech, they are optimized for particular languages, and thus not for others. Uh oh! There is no end to the degradation. And a lot of music content, at least to those algorithms, sounds like noise. Assuming they are noise, they attempt to remove any noises that are not identified as voice sounds. For example, phone systems relentless try to distinguish between voices and background noise. Still other factors conspire to make things even worse. And yesterday's crude designs have standardized today's poor performance. In addition, these codecs were designed decades ago, and were necessarily crude because of hardware and software limitations of the time. This accounts for the fact that the audio path will travel through different systems, and thus in and out of tandem codecs, adding to the misery. Now repeat the experiment with several talkers in a row. The sound of the music you convey is terrible because you were never designed to do that. Now you must reproduce those sounds, using only your voice-optimized larynx. But you can only interpret music sounds as if they are speech sounds. Here is a thought experiment: You, as a human, hear music. They try to convey music as if it was speech. If they encounter other kinds of sounds (like music sounds) they have no good way to encode or reproduce those sounds. They are only designed to "hear" speech sounds, and then "speak" those sounds. Specifically, the codecs that encode speech and then reproduce it use models of the human vocal tract for that job. ![]() In fact, they are ruthlessly optimized for that task. The biggest problem refers back to our simple answer: phone systems are designed to convey speech. Yes, music with a high dynamic range poses greater problems, but again, that's not really the central issue. Yes, this affects music fidelity, but it's the least of your worries.Īnother oft-cited problem is that the music is not properly recorded or conditioned for phone transmission. Yes, high frequencies are removed, and low frequencies are filtered as well. You often hear that bandwidth limitations are the problem. The more complex answers are numerous and interestingly, it seems like many people misunderstand the biggest culprit. That's why while voice quality is marginal, music quality is abysmal. The simple answer is this: phones are made for talking, not for playing music. But let me preface the explanation by saying that realistically, at least for now, there is no solution. Why can't we get decent music on a phone? Underwater, garbled, muffled, swirly, distorted. The sound quality of on-hold music makes the sound of a dentist's drill seem as soothing as the sweet whisperings of your lover cradled in your arms. But even that's not as bad as the actual sound quality of the music.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |