Small business: Answering machines vs. Answering service
Answering machines vs. Answering service
by wellmanc - 8/26/06 3:03 PMWhy can't we get good voice quality in an answering machine?
Machines available provide at best fair voice quality in recordings. Often I can't understand my messages when I call in for them. All have low prices, about $20, which no doubt limits recording quality. But a $100 answering machine that worked the same as the cheap ones except had good voice quality would be worth it. I could see if I had new messages instantly when I walk by it.
The answering services provided by telephone companies and others provide excellent voice quality but at a high monthly price and you have to call in to see if you have any messages.
Systems that work on PCs require a PC to be on 24 hours a day. That requires an UPS and a dedicated desktop PC for us laptop users. And, if the monitor is not kept on, you can't see if you have a message without calling in.
Perhaps the machine is just an old one?
by tomhouck - 8/29/06 5:38 PM In reply to: Answering machines vs. Answering service by wellmancI'm not sure if I follow his complaint. If he is referring to the common household digital answering machines I become even more confused. Sure the digital michines were not the best quality when they first appeared on the market, as has been with most new elctronic items. But I've owned digital answering machines now for several years and now find the quality just as clear and audible, or better than the old tape machines. Not sure if I can say which ones here or not, but both were purchased at Circuit City and I have no complaints.
Wish I could say the same for my new Bluetooth (which is one's only option other than holding the phone) for my Razor phone I purchased...it totally s---'-.
It's not an age related problem.
by wellmanc - 9/6/06 6:21 AM In reply to: Perhaps the machine is just an old one? by tomhouckI just through out a two year old digital machine and bought a new one. Both provided what I consider to be awful voice quality. CNET and other's reviews don't grade for voice quality: they just say it is fair at best.
Maybe if reviewers applied a quantitative test to define the distorsion level manufacturers would work on reducing distorsion.
Distorted Voices In Answering Machines
by JohnnyTheAussie - 8/29/06 6:55 PM In reply to: Answering machines vs. Answering service by wellmancI own a business servicing Answering Machines and similar items. Recent digital units use RAM chips to store the messages, and the quality depends on the size of these chips. To cut costs many manufacturers put in smaller capacity chips, lowering the frequency range and quality of the storage capacity. This is similar to using minimum RAM in your computer, slowing it dawn and causing other problems. In older machines using tapes the quality was usually much better.
Part of a Trend
by ggee6688 - 9/24/06 6:18 AM In reply to: Distorted Voices In Answering Machines by JohnnyTheAussieI have a Motorola MD681 telephone-answering machine purchased in 2005 for my home. The voice quality is poor and I am disgusted with it. This contrasts with the Siemens Gigaset 2420, purchased in 1999 for my business, and which has great voice quality. The problem is, I don't know if buying a new machine will solve the problem.
I see this as part of an overall trend in our society of not expressing a preference for audio quality. Look at how people are choosing to listen to their music on their PC and iPods rather than their stereos. Consumers have set aside audio quality for convenience.
With consumers lowering their personal standards in audio quality, the door was opened wide to answering machine manufacturers to use lower cost audio components in their answering machines without risking consumer backlash. Perhaps, this some of these cost savings have been passed along to consumers.
Both CNET and Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, are at fault for not bringing this problem to light, but just accepting it, perhaps because all manufacturers were doing it. Subjective judging of audio quality is, in my opinion, fine, although objective distortion parameters have existed for high fidelity audio equipment for years. They just haven't been applied to something this ''low-end.''
Consumers deserve better audio quality from their answering machines, and CNET and CU, our advocates, need to ask for it.
Answering Services
by nduen33 - 9/14/09 11:29 AM In reply to: Answering machines vs. Answering service by wellmancAnswering Services for small businesses have gotten more affordable over time and there is no longer any need to call in to get your messages received. There are several options when you contract an answering service company, such as getting your messages sent via email or logging in online to hear your messages. Most call center and answering services now offer several options for small businesses and are generally pretty reasonably prices.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
