XPost: uk.tech.broadcast

I play voice recordings of meetings using an ordinary under-chin
transcription headset. I get clear speech.

However I want to play recordings to more than one person using
speakers. Small hifi speakers don't play back voice as clearly as basic speakers in many tvs or radios.

Are there any speakers (or alternatively, sound-shaping software) which
are designed for clear playback of voice?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: uk.tech.broadcast

In article <t6ik37$a5d$1@dont-email.me>,
David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:

However, unless the microphone has an excess bass response, I don't
really see why a hifi speaker should be worse than a lo-fi one.

I agree, I can't either. Pamela has obviously had an experience where
they did but if they were good recordings and good speakers I suspect
speaker placement. Too close to a rear wall, or worse still in a
corner or worse still near the ceiling or floor and in a corner. :-)
Any placing like that would considerably muddy the sound.

IMHO, away from walls and preferably on stands, good hi-fi speakers
should give very good results on speech.

Bob.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: uk.tech.broadcast

Woody wrote:

Earlier this year I was wandering round a NT property and in a couple of rooms
heard some piano music very well reproduced. It proved to be an Anker SoundCore
mini loudspeaker. I bought one and was/am surprised how good it sounds

Seems a bit of an oversight for such an amplified speaker to not include a 3.5mm
input?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 26 May 2022 at 09:40:43 UTC+1, Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article <XnsAEA2C7B...@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 14:33 25 May 2022, David Woolley said:

On 25/05/2022 12:24, Pamela wrote:

All recordings in MP3, at bitrate of something like 128kbps and 22kHz
sample rate.

Although not part of the problem, this is seriously over-engineered
for the application. In particular, there will be no point in
sampling Tru-Call recordings faster than 8kHz, and the limit for the dictation machine is unlikely to be more, possibly about 11kHz, to
give better sibilants. 16kHz seems to be the top end.

I couldn't agree more but many of these values are in the presets.

I'm assuming the 'kHz' values people are quoting are *actually* 'sampled
per second' not 'audio bandwidth'.

an 64kbps (8k samples of 8-bit) is enough to encode speech up to about 3kHz.

That said, what characterises the 'extranious sounds'? If it is too much low-frequency garbage and muffled mid/'high' frequencies then a simple
filter may do the trick. Either in software or putting a simple LC HPF in
the analog path. But the latter approach prompts asking if you can solder. :-)

What I suspect is happening here is that the wrong decoder is being used resulting in distorted results (G.711 A-law, G.711 'mu'-law, g.722, G.726, G.729) or possibly original GSM encoding (at ~13kbps) using GSM 06.10, although now enhanced.

From a digital POV 'sox' will filter and also play audio. I suspect many sound replay programs with a GUI will also do so. Audacity certainly lets
you filter the audio. I tend to do that when working on recordings from LPs as it makes clicks and pops easier to find.

Jim

--
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)