static on cordless phones
E Z Peaces
clarity is poor.
I've found a low price for a 5.8gHz phone that Consumer Reports rated a
best buy. Among 26 Amazon reviews, 10 complain of static. Of the other
16, many say the clarity and range are excellent.
A dissatisfied customer is probably more likely to write a review, so
the number of customers who dislike this phone is probably less than 38%.
I can imagine three reasons some customers would have static:
1. Poor quality control.
2. The frequency doesn't work well in some homes.
3. Some homes have a problem in the telephone wiring (particularly
connectors) or the position of the base station.
Should I go ahead and buy it?
Rod Speed
> I have a 2.4gHz cordless phone with good range and no static,
Not surprising given the technology used with those.
> but the clarity is poor.
> I've found a low price for a 5.8gHz phone that Consumer Reports rated a best buy. Among 26 Amazon reviews, 10
> complain of static. Of the other 16, many say the clarity and range are excellent.
> A dissatisfied customer is probably more likely to write a review, so the number of customers who dislike this phone
> is probably less than 38%.
> I can imagine three reasons some customers would have static:
> 1. Poor quality control.
> 2. The frequency doesn't work well in some homes.
It wont be that, it isnt a frequency used by much else.
> 3. Some homes have a problem in the telephone wiring (particularly connectors)
That wont produce 'static'
> or the position of the base station.
> Should I go ahead and buy it?
Makes sense to buy it from an operation that allows it to be returned if it doesnt work well for you.
Don K
news:ffr7jb$udo$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
If it's an analog phone, that would explain the static.
Not all 5.8GHz phones are digital or spread-spectrum.
If it's an analog phone, I wouldn't buy it.
Don
E Z Peaces
The manufacturer, Uniden, says digital allows signals to sound clearer
and is more secure. Digital sounds like a selling point, but when I
went to the Uniden online store I found that their specs don't seem to
say if a phone is digital unless it's FHSS.
Logan Shaw
> If it's an analog phone, that would explain the static.
> Not all 5.8GHz phones are digital or spread-spectrum.
I have a Panasonic KX-TG5240, which is a 5.8 GHz digital spread-spectrum
phone. A few years ago, I spent well over $100 for it (maybe even $150)
and I took good performance for granted.
Turns out, in the outgoing direction only, there is frequently a lot of
static and a lot of dropouts. I can't hear any problem, but almost everyone
I've talked to regularly has complained about sometimes not being able to
hear me. For quite some time I searched for the pattern of what would set
its bad performance off. I looked for sources of interference, usage
patterns, settings, and so on, and I could find nothing. I lived near
some big power transmission lines connecting the local hydro power plant,
so I thought broadband noise from the sheer amount of power from that
might be the problem, but then I moved to another place a few miles away
and to my surprise the problem came with me. So it wasn't the environment.
Finally, after what must've been 2 or 3 years of using the phone, I
realized under what circumstances it happens: it happens when the
handset is too close to the base station. If I simply walk to another
room away from the base station, the problem goes away. Because of
that, I chalk it up to a design or quality-control flaw.
The point is, yeah, a relatively high-end 5.8 GHz phone, even if it's
digital spread spectrum (which by its very nature is *very* tolerant
of interference and other transmission problems), can still have
pretty bad sound quality.
If it were me, and if several people complained in reviews about
distorted sound, I would avoid that phone.
On a side note, I really don't understand how cordless phones do not
have near *perfect* signal quality. The bandwidth required for a
telephone conversation is about 50 to 70 kilobits/second. Compared
to the level of bandwidth that, say, 802.11(g) can deliver, this is
absolutely minuscule. It seems to me that with the bandwidth available,
you could transmit *massively* redundant copies of all the voice traffic,
to the tune of perhaps 10 times or even 100 times redundancy. If
you did that and used a decent system to detect and select the
uncorrupted data, it seems like you could have amazingly low bit
error rates.
- Logan
Rod Speed
It isnt hard with analog cordless.
> The bandwidth required for a telephone conversation is about 50 to 70 kilobits/second. Compared to the level of
> bandwidth that, say, 802.11(g) can deliver, this is absolutely minuscule. It seems to me that with the bandwidth
> available, you could transmit *massively* redundant copies of all the voice traffic, to the tune of perhaps 10 times
> or even 100 times redundancy. If you did that and used a decent system to detect and select the uncorrupted data, it
> seems like you could have amazingly low bit error rates.
Sure, and a properly design digital cordless system does that.
Don K
news:47218615$0$15377$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> Don K wrote:
>> If it's an analog phone, that would explain the static.
>> Not all 5.8GHz phones are digital or spread-spectrum.
>
> I have a Panasonic KX-TG5240, which is a 5.8 GHz digital spread-spectrum
> phone. A few years ago, I spent well over $100 for it (maybe even $150)
> and I took good performance for granted.
> The point is, yeah, a relatively high-end 5.8 GHz phone, even if it's
> digital spread spectrum (which by its very nature is *very* tolerant
> of interference and other transmission problems), can still have
> pretty bad sound quality.
I have a 4-station Panasonic KX-TGA560B 5.8 GHz digital spread
spectrum phone bought from BJs. It has excellent range and quality and even
has a "voice enhancer" which makes it even better. Aside from digital,
I chose it because its answering machine announces the name of the
persons calling. My only regret is that I wish it had a couple more stations.
>
> On a side note, I really don't understand how cordless phones do not
> have near *perfect* signal quality. The bandwidth required for a
> telephone conversation is about 50 to 70 kilobits/second. Compared
> to the level of bandwidth that, say, 802.11(g) can deliver, this is
> absolutely minuscule. It seems to me that with the bandwidth available,
> you could transmit *massively* redundant copies of all the voice traffic,
> to the tune of perhaps 10 times or even 100 times redundancy. If
> you did that and used a decent system to detect and select the
> uncorrupted data, it seems like you could have amazingly low bit
> error rates.
OTOH, I find it amazing that all those features can be put together into
a system that works as well as it does and still cost about a hundred bucks.
Don
E Z Peaces
>
> I have a 4-station Panasonic KX-TGA560B 5.8 GHz digital spread
> spectrum phone bought from BJs. It has excellent range and quality and even
> has a "voice enhancer" which makes it even better. Aside from digital,
> I chose it because its answering machine announces the name of the
> persons calling. My only regret is that I wish it had a couple more stations.
>
That's not a complete phone but a handset/charger.
It looks as if you've pointed me in the right direction. Nobody seems
to have anything bad to say about the TG60 series. Everybody says the
sound is very clear.
Here's one feature Panasonic advertises:
"By simulating a band signal above and below the normal bandwidth
limitations, Voice Enhancer Technology helps clarify and improve sound
reception creating a natural-sounding voice that is easy to hear and
understand."
I don't know what that means, but two problems I've had trouble with on
several cordless phones are limited bandwidth ( which can make
consonants ambiguous ) and uneven frequency response ( which can make
some callers sound horribly distorted ). I have an $8 corded phone
which is excellent on both counts.
Logan Shaw
> Here's one feature Panasonic advertises:
>
> "By simulating a band signal above and below the normal bandwidth
> limitations, Voice Enhancer Technology helps clarify and improve sound
> reception creating a natural-sounding voice that is easy to hear and
> understand."
My phone has the Voice Enhancer feature, and I *hate* it. I think it
sounds positively awful. Certainly "natural-sounding" is the very
last phrase I'd use to describe it.
Based on having heard it and based on that description, it sounds like
they are digitally adding in frequencies that get lost in a normal
phone call. This is sort of akin to an octave doubler pedal used on
an electric guitar. I notice mainly extra high frequencies that get
added in and make the voice sound extremely, for lack of a better
word, "squeaky".
For all I know, some other people might like the feature. I just
personally don't like anything that's built on the principle that
you can take a signal with limited information and create extra
information out of thin air. Yeah, certainly you can add information
to the signal, but the information you add is not going to have any
value. If you could fabricate meaningful information out of nothing,
you could just eliminate the phone line altogether, and you could do
a lot of other crazy, amazing things too.
- Logan
E Z Peaces
> Don K wrote:
>> If it's an analog phone, that would explain the static.
>> Not all 5.8GHz phones are digital or spread-spectrum.
>
> I have a Panasonic KX-TG5240, which is a 5.8 GHz digital spread-spectrum
> phone. A few years ago, I spent well over $100 for it (maybe even $150)
> and I took good performance for granted.
>
Thanks to you and Don. I got a Panasonic KX-TG6051. It's a lot cheaper
than the old 5240, and it's the best cordless phone I can remember
using. Most of all I love the clarity, which makes conversation a
pleasure. In several hours of conversation with six people or more, I
haven't been in doubt about a single word. I have to watch out for
background noise with some callers because the volume can't be turned up
much, but I'll take clarity over volume any day. It's far less distorted
than a five-year-old Panasonic belonging to relatives.
I like the features, too. It doesn't have to have the clock reset in
case of a power failure and the ringers on the base and handset can be
set loud enough to be sure I don't miss a call. It has a place to
string a cord, which won't snap like a belt clip.
I'm glad I bought it although I can't say it's better than competing brands.
Don K
> Logan Shaw wrote:
>> Don K wrote:
>>> If it's an analog phone, that would explain the static.
>>> Not all 5.8GHz phones are digital or spread-spectrum.
>>
>> I have a Panasonic KX-TG5240, which is a 5.8 GHz digital spread-spectrum
>> phone. A few years ago, I spent well over $100 for it (maybe even $150)
>> and I took good performance for granted.
>>
>
> Thanks to you and Don. I got a Panasonic KX-TG6051. It's a lot cheaper than the old
> 5240, and it's the best cordless phone I can remember using. Most of all I love the
> clarity, which makes conversation a pleasure. In several hours of conversation with six
> people or more, I haven't been in doubt about a single word. I have to watch out for
> background noise with some callers because the volume can't be turned up much, but I'll
> take clarity over volume any day. It's far less distorted than a five-year-old Panasonic
> belonging to relatives.
I'm glad to hear it worked out well for you. I have the KX-TG5653, which
is very similar to what you bought. Previously I had posted the model number
of the remote phone which is near the computer.
You can get all the volume you need, just by pressing the speakerphone
button!
> I like the features, too. It doesn't have to have the clock reset in case of a power
> failure and the ringers on the base and handset can be set loud enough to be sure I
> don't miss a call. It has a place to string a cord, which won't snap like a belt clip.
Another feature I like is the ability to update the phone book from
any extension.
> I'm glad I bought it although I can't say it's better than competing brands.
I don't know how it compares to all others either, but I do think it's the
nicest phone I ever had.
Don