Monoaural vs. Stereo

[KellyClarksonTV]

Why aren't stereophonic telephones around yet? The quality of phone calls would
be a lot better. How about Dolby 5.1 sound quality phones? (5 speakers and a
Subwoofer) Is it possible to combine 2 or more speaker signals into one signal
so existing Monoaural phones could still be operated and the signals could be
sent through the phone system in one line and then be decoded by the stereo
telephone units?

Also, why don't humans (or any other animal for that matter of fact) have two
or more mouths so we could speak in Stereo quality? (LOL)

 

[Sporkman]

Why aren't stereophonic telephones around yet? The quality of phone calls would
be a lot better. How about Dolby 5.1 sound quality phones? (5 speakers and a
Subwoofer) Is it possible to combine 2 or more speaker signals into one signal
so existing Monoaural phones could still be operated and the signals could be
sent through the phone system in one line and then be decoded by the stereo
telephone units?

Also, why don't humans (or any other animal for that matter of fact) have two
or more mouths so we could speak in Stereo quality? (LOL)

 

[Forward Thinking]

[email protected] (KellyClarksonTV) wrote in

Why aren't stereophonic telephones around yet? The quality of phone
calls would be a lot better. How about Dolby 5.1 sound quality phones?
(5 speakers and a Subwoofer) Is it possible to combine 2 or more
speaker signals into one signal so existing Monoaural phones could
still be operated and the signals could be sent through the phone
system in one line and then be decoded by the stereo telephone units?

Also, why don't humans (or any other animal for that matter of fact)
have two or more mouths so we could speak in Stereo quality? (LOL)

It seems that so far most people are happy with one mouth, and unless it
was on the bottom of your feet you most likely wouldn't be able to tell the
difference. As for the phones I don't see that happening, no one I know
would buy a new phone and the telecoms wouldn't want to upgrade their
equipment plus people don't talk with enough bass to require a subwoofer.
The only thing I can think of 5.1 being good for is if you wanted to call a
radio station or something and get a feed and even that is still stereo.

 

[KellyClarksonTV]

but Monoaural is simple OLD technology! Radios, TVs, and all Recording Media
have all been updated to either Stereo or Dolby 5.1. Why not telephones?

 

[Karl Uppiano]

but Monoaural is simple OLD technology! Radios, TVs, and all Recording
Media
have all been updated to either Stereo or Dolby 5.1. Why not telephones?

Because it would be a total freakin' waste of bandwidth, which is scarce
enough as it is. More channels don't equal better technology; things like
wireless phones, voice messaging, text messaging, imaging, caller id --
Those are new and better technology where it matters, and more importantly,
that people will pay for.

There is no significant psycho-acoustic advantage to hearing someone's voice
in stereo for point-to-point communication. The telephone system is pretty
well matched to the physics of speech. The application doesn't demand
multi-channel audio. Music, movies and other entertainment, even that's
debatable at times. You often get the impression that the producer doesn't
know what to do with all those channels, so they get gimmicky.

P.S., I realize the OP was probably trolling, but I responded because there
are some interesting points here.

 

[Ken Taylor]

Because it would be a total freakin' waste of bandwidth, which is scarce
enough as it is. More channels don't equal better technology; things like
wireless phones, voice messaging, text messaging, imaging, caller id --
Those are new and better technology where it matters, and more importantly,
that people will pay for.

There is no significant psycho-acoustic advantage to hearing someone's voice
in stereo for point-to-point communication. The telephone system is pretty
well matched to the physics of speech. The application doesn't demand
multi-channel audio. Music, movies and other entertainment, even that's
debatable at times. You often get the impression that the producer doesn't
know what to do with all those channels, so they get gimmicky.

P.S., I realize the OP was probably trolling, but I responded because there
are some interesting points here.

Of course he's trolling. He's just learnt about stereo, so now he has
something other than batteries to talk about.

 

[Dbowey]

kelly etc. posted:

<< but Monoaural is simple OLD technology! Radios, TVs, and all Recording Media
have all been updated to either Stereo or Dolby 5.1. Why not telephones?
1. Because each mike would pick up the same audio and there would be no
spatial difference.


2. There is insufficient bandwidth. A high-quality telephone channel uses the
spectrum of about 300 to 3400Hz and that is encoded to a 64 kbit/s digital
channel for switching and transmission.

3. Old is not necessarily bad. Be more open=minded.

Don

 

[classd101]

hmmmm It could be done, but, what type of battery do you plan on powering this with?

 

[KellyClarksonTV]

How about recycled alkaline batteries that I have recharged?

By the way, does anyone recharge standard alkaline batteries?