[Scan-DC] Question about analog simulcast voice quality

[Blake Bowers]

I would guess it has something to do with where the audio is being recovered 
from.


Don't take your organs to heaven,
heaven knows we need them down here!
Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Doug Kitchener" <oldsdoug at hotmail.com>
To: <scan-dc at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Scan-DC] Question about analog simulcast voice quality



I can't contribute anything to the knowledge here, but I wonder if you might 
be onto something, Andy, because the Montgomery system does something 
similar... I wonder if it's just that the audio circuits in the 
"professional" two-way radio systems are of a higher quality than those in 
the consumer scanners. (Actually, the other way around, that the consumer 
ones are not as good in order to keep the cost down.)

Thinking about the codec, my guess is this group is pretty well informed, so 
we'd have probably have heard something through the grapevine... but the 
idea does make sense....

DK

----------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:22:59 -0500
> From: aclegg at nsf.gov
> To: scan-dc at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: [Scan-DC] Question about analog simulcast voice quality
>
> I have a dumb question. Why is it that the 800 MHz analog simulcast of
> Arlington's digital P25 system has audio quality that is soooooo much
> better than when I listen to their digital system on any digital
> scanner? The analog simulcast has to be from decoded digital audio, but,
> except for times when the PD/FD units are on the fringe of coverage and
> become "digital," the audio quality is crystal clear. On the other hand,
> the digital system as monitored on a digital scanner sounds like warbly
> muffled audio like the speaker is at the bottom of a pool, with their
> hands over their mouth to boot.
>
> Is there some sort of proprietary (and superior) P25 CODEC that is not
> available in (or too expensive for) consumer scanners? If so, has anyone
> seen a discussion of this CODEC online anywhere, and whether the scanner
> manufacturers will ever be able to get hold of it? To me it seems like
> the next logical step in scanner product development - vastly improved
> digital audio!
>
> Andy
> ______________________________________________________________
> Scan-DC mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/scan-dc
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Scan-DC at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
Scan-DC mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/scan-dc
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Scan-DC at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html