Good Digital Answering Machine?
73115...@compuserve.com
Has anyone found a *decent* sounding digital answering machine? I've
bought two now that sound like the robot from Lost in Space. Both the
high end Panasonic and the high end GE digital machines are almost
impossible to understand. Considering the price they ask for these
machines ($59 and $39 respectively), they should be much better
quality...
You would think with memory prices as low as they are that the
manufacturers would use slightly less stingy encoding.
Ken
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Satyan Namdhari
Hi Ken,
Did you try Lucent's Digital Answering Machines? Visit our web
site at :
http://www.lucent.com/consumer/docs/diganscr.html
I am very sure that with Lucent's answering machines you will not
have any complaints about voice
quality.
--
Satyan Namdhari
Lucent Technologies Inc.
e-mail : namd...@lucent.com
Phone : (732) 544 - 3143
73115...@compuserve.com wrote in article
<8714952...@dejanews.com>...
Mark Atwood
73115...@compuserve.com wrote in article <8714952...@dejanews.com>...
> Has anyone found a *decent* sounding digital answering machine? I've
> bought two now that sound like the robot from Lost in Space. Both the
> high end Panasonic and the high end GE digital machines are almost
> impossible to understand. Considering the price they ask for these
> machines ($59 and $39 respectively), they should be much better
> quality...
I use the voicemail system provided by the telco. There *is* a monthly
charge of a couple of bucks, but the voice quality is full "telephone
quality", and it has the advantage that it works when the phone is
busy. You *cant get* a busy signal when you call my number.
--
Mark Atwood | Thank you gentlemen, you are everything we have come to
z...@ampersand.com | expect from years of government training. -- MIB Zed
Jeffrey K. Lew
In article <01bca8c3$e7b7c200$844f...@namdhariwrk01.ho.lucent.com>,
"Satyan Namdhari" <namd...@hocpa.lucent.com> wrote:
> Hi Ken,
> Did you try Lucent's Digital Answering Machines? Visit our web
> site at :
> http://www.lucent.com/consumer/docs/diganscr.html
>
> I am very sure that with Lucent's answering machines you will not
> have any complaints about voice
> quality.
> --
(snip)>
>
> 73115...@compuserve.com wrote in article
> <8714952...@dejanews.com>...
> > Has anyone found a *decent* sounding digital answering machine?
I just got a Lucent 1725, and it has good sound. This machine has
24-minute capacity, four mailboxes, two greetings and one announce-only
greeting. The built-in mike for recording your greeting, however, is poor.
I recorded a greeting with my cheap Plantronics SP-04 headset (the one you
can get at Staples or Office Depot) from my office that sounded better
than anything I've ever heard off of a tape, and certainly better than
using the built-in microphone.
David Richards
In article <8714952...@dejanews.com>,
<73115...@NOSPAMcompuserve.com> wrote:
>Has anyone found a *decent* sounding digital answering machine? I've
>bought two now that sound like the robot from Lost in Space. Both the
>high end Panasonic and the high end GE digital machines are almost
>impossible to understand. Considering the price they ask for these
>machines ($59 and $39 respectively), they should be much better
>quality...
"high end" and $59 for an answering machine don't belong in the same
sentence...
Look at the AT&T labeled machines in the $100 price range, the sound
is as good as a casette-based machine with a fresh tape.
>You would think with memory prices as low as they are that the
>manufacturers would use slightly less stingy encoding.
Less than the compression, it's the Analog->Digital conversion where the
cheap machines seem to be lacking.
On the other hand, I'd love to see an expandable machine that would accept
banks of those old 30-pin 80ns SIMMs... otherwise I'll just continue to
use them for distinctive keyrings.
msim...@pop.uky.edu
In article <5t0odk$dem$1...@chinet.chinet.com>, a...@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H.
Kerman) wrote:
>Does any telephone company voice-mail system offer toll saver?
The voice-mail on my Bell South Mobility cellular phone offers "air-time
saver". If I call it from the cell phone by dialing *99, it will answer
immediately if I have messages, and ring once if I don't. That allows me to
avoid paying for air time just to find out I don't have any messages. I'm
not sure if it behaves the same way when calling from a land line.
--
Matt Simpson --- Lead Systems Programmer, MVS
University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
msim...@pop.uky.edu http://rivendell.cc.uky.edu
A programmer is a machine for turning beer into code
David Lesher
Mark Atwood <z...@ampersand.com> writes:
>I use the voicemail system provided by the telco. There *is* a monthly
>charge of a couple of bucks, but the voice quality is full "telephone
>quality", and it has the advantage that it works when the phone is
>busy. You *cant get* a busy signal when you call my number.
A) if you have metered calling, you pay for every call so-sent.
B) Your messages are on disk at the CO, waiting for the telco
to:
A) lose them.
B) send then to the wrong people
C) Share with other folks
No, thank you....
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Adam H. Kerman
In article <33f4d32d....@news.oz.net>, Joseph Singer <d...@oz.net> wrote:
>On 14 Aug 1997 13:30:51 -0400, Mark Atwood <z...@ampersand.com> wrote:
>>I use the voicemail system provided by the telco.
>I don't know where *you* live, but telco voice messaging/voice mail is
>$6.95 a month in US West territory in Washington and I've seen similar
>prices in other areas. $7 x 12 months will buy you a pretty decent
>telephone answering machine. I'll grant you it will not answer the
>line while occupied, but that's about the only feature I can really
>see that telco voicemessaging has over a regular answering machine.
Does any telephone company voice-mail system offer toll saver? That's an
important advantage of answering machines.
Ken Jongsma
Mark Atwood <z...@ampersand.com> wrote:
>73115...@compuserve.com wrote in article <8714952...@dejanews.com>...
>> Has anyone found a *decent* sounding digital answering machine? I've
>> bought two now that sound like the robot from Lost in Space. Both the
>> high end Panasonic and the high end GE digital machines are almost
>> impossible to understand. Considering the price they ask for these
>> machines ($59 and $39 respectively), they should be much better
>> quality...
>
>I use the voicemail system provided by the telco. There *is* a monthly
>charge of a couple of bucks, but the voice quality is full "telephone
>quality", and it has the advantage that it works when the phone is
>busy. You *cant get* a busy signal when you call my number.
Yep, I had that for 6 months, but decided that paying $72/year for
voicemail wasn't worth it when a machine was $40.
Bill Rubin
David Lesher wrote:
>
> Mark Atwood <z...@ampersand.com> writes:
>
> >I use the voicemail system provided by the telco. There *is* a monthly
> >charge of a couple of bucks, but the voice quality is full "telephone
> >quality", and it has the advantage that it works when the phone is
> >busy. You *cant get* a busy signal when you call my number.
That's actually a nice feature... but...
> A) if you have metered calling, you pay for every call so-sent.
> B) Your messages are on disk at the CO, waiting for the telco
> to:
> A) lose them.
> B) send then to the wrong people
> C) Share with other folks
>
> No, thank you....
Not to mention there's no blinking light to remind you that you have
messages waiting. I thought I read somewhere that your dialtone
changes so you know you have messages, but remembering to pick up the
phone again after you hang up from being on a call must be rather
confusing. Not to mention that you then have to return the call, and if
it's long distance it will cost you. I'd rather have call waiting,
people may not like being placed on hold but it's better than getting a
busy signal.
Bill
Harry McGregor
We have US-West (or as I like to refer to them, due to the service
that my ISP has been through, US-Worst) Voice messaging. The way that
we justify the cost is the $6.xx a month is a lot cheaper than 2 phone
lines (modem, for a lot of net usage, and voice for standard calls).
I have been tempted by a proposed deal (that just hit a dead end,
AzStarNet is looking for a new partner) between Brooks Fiber and
AzStarNet. The deal offered ISDN internet service (2B+D), and 2 voice
numbers (with a number of really useful telephony services, like auto
scale back to receive a call), unlimited (well, un metered as they
like to refer to it, they do not want a 24/7 connect on it), and the
ISDN Router (Cisco 766, or maybe 760, I do not quite remember) for
$69US a month plus a $500 install fee. This deal was within $4 (+) or
the price for AzStarNet and 2 us-west analog lines (that you would not
be allowed to use MPPP on, so you only had one for internet usage at a
time). They were also going to offer xDSL service (24/7 connect
2.5/.8 Mbit) with a dedicated voice circuit for $109 a month plus
$1000 install (including the hardware, and setup).
Harry
Joel W. Kolstad
Bill Rubin <bill...@prodigy.net> wrote in article
<33F3D8...@prodigy.net>...
> David Richards wrote:
> >
> > "high end" and $59 for an answering machine don't belong in the same
> > sentence...
Yeah, but it's difficult to find what you'd consider a "high end" answering
machine at your local store these days.
> Good point. Nor do GE and "high end" or even "quality", especially when
> it comes to answering machines.
I don't know about GE...
I suggest that people looking for a good value in a $59 answering machine
look at the AT&T/Lucent models 715. The synthesized voice sounds quite
good, the compression level isn't cranked up too much, and it doesn't need
batteries to retain the messages when it loses power.
---Joel Kolstad
Dave Engle
>> > "high end" and $59 for an answering machine don't belong in the same
>> > sentence...
>
>Yeah, but it's difficult to find what you'd consider a "high end" answering
>machine at your local store these days.
>
>> Good point. Nor do GE and "high end" or even "quality", especially when
>> it comes to answering machines.
>
>I don't know about GE...
>
>I suggest that people looking for a good value in a $59 answering machine
>look at the AT&T/Lucent models 715. The synthesized voice sounds quite
>good, the compression level isn't cranked up too much, and it doesn't need
>batteries to retain the messages when it loses power.
here is a good suggestion as well.
I have found AT&T to be very pricey in what they offer as far as
features.
I got a good quality answering machine digital at Walmart for about 30
bux features. 2 way call recording, 4 mailboxes, that will keep
different outgoing messages and voice messages incoming in 4 different
mailboxes. Nice feature, if you have business calls at home, kids,
other interests etc and could use more than 1 voice mailbox. has been
very relaible, and other than spilling a full cup of coffee on one,
has never failed. this is our seond one (the first one drowned in the
coffee). They are very enduring too, this one has been dropped on the
floor many times and is A-OK after a yr.
Dave Engle
>Yeah, but it's difficult to find what you'd consider a "high end" answering
>machine at your local store these days.
>
>> Good point. Nor do GE and "high end" or even "quality", especially when
>> it comes to answering machines.
>
>I don't know about GE...
>
>I suggest that people looking for a good value in a $59 answering machine
>look at the AT&T/Lucent models 715. The synthesized voice sounds quite
>good, the compression level isn't cranked up too much, and it doesn't need
>batteries to retain the messages when it loses power.
>
By the way on the previous post I forgot the make and model of the
answering machine, sorry. here it is.
Bell South 2006C
retail at Walmart is about.....$29-$31
msim...@pop.uky.edu
In article <msimpson-ya0240800...@news.uky.edu>,
msim...@pop.uky.edu wrote:
>>Does any telephone company voice-mail system offer toll saver?
>The voice-mail on my Bell South Mobility cellular phone offers "air-time
>saver". If I call it from the cell phone by dialing *99, it will answer
>immediately if I have messages, and ring once if I don't. That allows me to
>avoid paying for air time just to find out I don't have any messages. I'm
>not sure if it behaves the same way when calling from a land line.
If I had thought about this a little harder before I posted it, I would
have realized it obviously doesn't, and can't, work the same way when
calling from a land line. When I call in via cell phone, it knows who I am
right away (well .. it assumes it's me since it's coming from my phone).
When calling from a land line, I dial an access number, which is the same
for all customers. When the system answers, I key in my phone number and
PIN, and it tells me whether I have messages. Since it doesn't know who I
am until after it answers and I identify myself, it can't provide
toll-saver features.
I think most telco-provided voice mail will work the same way. If you're
not calling from your home phone, you dial a common access number, and then
enter your phone number and PIN. They wouldn't be able to provide
toll-saver unless each customer with a unique number to dial into, so the
system would know who you were before it answered. I don't think any of
them do that.
Alexey Ivanov
: I think most telco-provided voice mail will work the same way. If you're
: not calling from your home phone, you dial a common access number, and then
: enter your phone number and PIN. They wouldn't be able to provide
: toll-saver unless each customer with a unique number to dial into, so the
: system would know who you were before it answered. I don't think any of
: them do that.
I believe you just dial your own number! If it is 4 rings, hang up - no new
mesg. Two rings: you got some!
--Alex
Jim Gottlieb
>Less than the compression, it's the Analog->Digital conversion where the
>cheap machines seem to be lacking.
It's not just cheap machines that have horrible encoding. I have
Nortel's top-of-the-line, $200+, fancy-schmancy unit and the sound
quality is so bad that I can't recognize the voices of good friends,
and people calling me say it sounds like I'm speaking under water.
--
NOTE: Remove the temp?? hostname to reply after two weeks.
Jim Gottlieb | E-Mail: jimmy[@]info.com | In Japan: jimmy[@]denwa.linc.or.jp
V-Mail: +1 619 260 6912 | Fax: +1 619 558 1113
My Home Page URL: http://www.info.com/jimmy/
Al Varney
In article <5tcitg$8...@sinden.info.com>,
Jim Gottlieb <ji...@temp01.info.com> wrote:
>In article <5svp0r$41$1...@gail.ripco.com>, David Richards <d...@ripco.com> wrote:
>
>>Less than the compression, it's the Analog->Digital conversion where the
>>cheap machines seem to be lacking.
>
>It's not just cheap machines that have horrible encoding. I have
>Nortel's top-of-the-line, $200+, fancy-schmancy unit and the sound
>quality is so bad that I can't recognize the voices of good friends,
>and people calling me say it sounds like I'm speaking under water.
Lucent Technologies has a line of digital answering equipment starting
at $60, ranked No. 1 based on consumer testing.
See <http://www.lucent.com/press/0897/970819.cpa.html>
Whether that's cheap, I couldn't say.
Al Varney - just repeating what I read.... YMMV
Dave Engle
>> Lucent Technologies has a line of digital answering equipment starting
>>at $60, ranked No. 1 based on consumer testing.
>>
>> See <http://www.lucent.com/press/0897/970819.cpa.html>
>>
>> Whether that's cheap, I couldn't say.
>>
>>Al Varney - just repeating what I read.... YMMV
>
>
>reading what crosses your desk and your comments may not be entirely
>without bias.
>
>Your comments therefore would have to be taken with this as a
>consideration, Right?
AHAHAHAAH Yeah no kidding a guy from Lucent address claims theirs is
#1, ROFL, no biasedness there I am sure !
Bell South model 2006C
** Bought at Walmart.
** has 4 digital mailboxes each with diff message, sound quality is
very good in price range
** All other digital features you would expect.
** Very durable (yes been drop and drag tested heheh)
Cost I think was around 30 bux, like 29.77 or something like that.
1-800-338-1694 is the # on the bottom of it.
I have one, very happy with the cost, quality, and value.
Richard Gaupsas
I just bought the Lucent 1725. The sound quality is better than my year
old Sony TAM-2000 and is more intuitive to use. A nice item for the $69
I paid for it. The only drawback is that it cannot be hung from a wall like
the Sony.
Al Varney (var...@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com) wrote:
: In article <5tcitg$8...@sinden.info.com>,
: Jim Gottlieb <ji...@temp01.info.com> wrote:
: >In article <5svp0r$41$1...@gail.ripco.com>, David Richards <d...@ripco.com> wrote:
: >
: >>Less than the compression, it's the Analog->Digital conversion where the
: >>cheap machines seem to be lacking.
: >
: >It's not just cheap machines that have horrible encoding. I have
: >Nortel's top-of-the-line, $200+, fancy-schmancy unit and the sound
: >quality is so bad that I can't recognize the voices of good friends,
: >and people calling me say it sounds like I'm speaking under water.
: Lucent Technologies has a line of digital answering equipment starting
Al Varney
In article <33fe6860...@news.mindspring.com>,
<unid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 20 Aug 1997 18:39:23 GMT, var...@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney)
>wrote:
>> Lucent Technologies has a line of digital answering equipment starting
>>at $60, ranked No. 1 based on consumer testing.
>> See <http://www.lucent.com/press/0897/970819.cpa.html>
>> Whether that's cheap, I couldn't say.
>>Al Varney - just repeating what I read.... YMMV
>Given your E-mail address I would have to conclude that you are
>reading what crosses your desk and your comments may not be entirely
>without bias.
Without bias, since I was not expressing an opinion. And the press
release was relatively fresh, yes.
>Your comments therefore would have to be taken with this as a
>consideration, Right?
Yes -- just repeating what I read. Was that not an appropriate
answer to the request for "good, cheap" digital answering systems?
The referenced URL indicates the results of an independent testing lab.
I thought it was more appropriate than any of the following:
"I really like my AT&T (now Lucent) Digital Answering System.
Have had it for 3 years. 4 mailboxes, also a telephone, hangs
on the wall or sits on desk. Great sound quality."
Go to <http://www.lucentdirect.com> to see/order products like
our great digital answering machines!!!!!
Was there a better way for an employee (with no direct interest in
our Consumer Products division other than as the happy owner of one
of their digital answering systems/telephones) to inform others of the
results of some consumer tests? Or should that information not be
made available by people manufacturing/selling the product?
Did I break some written/unwritten rule of <misc.consumers> in
responding to a <comp.dcom.telecom.tech> article? If so, I'll remember
to eliminate <misc.consumers> from any further postings -- I don't read
it. In <comp.dcom.telecom.tech>, it is OFTEN the vendors who respond
to requests for information.
Al Varney - confused
73115...@nospamcompuserve.com
var...@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) wrote:
[Deleted For Brevity]
Since I was the one that posted the original question, I want to say
that I appreciated Al's comments. I was also very aware of his
affiliation with AT&T/Lucent from his numerous informative postings to
the net (which he has never made a secret).
I work for Honeywell, but not the division that makes thermostats.
That won't stop me from commenting on any thermostat postings, nor
will it cause me to mention it as a disclaimer, unless I'm feeling
particularly strange.
Recommendations on the net are individually worth what you pay for
them. They can ocasionally be useful in agregate...
Thanks, Al...
Ken