This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Telecommunications This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I'm really a beginner to spectral analysis, but when I tried to use the given frequency range to analyze voice I got rather strange results.

Looking up other resources I found very different frequency ranges being mentioned for human voice. Please see the following pages about this:

• http://paranormalghost.com/evp_frequency_ranges.htm
• http://www.transom.org/tools/editing_mixing/200402.voiceprocessing.html

--Shinjin 14:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page isn't about the spectral range of the human voice - which is much wider than the numbers given here - but about a range used in telecommunications (and more generally to label a segment of the electromagnetic spectrum).

If you can imagine how a voice sounds down a telephone line - we're used to it, but if you compare it to the voice of someone in the flesh it sounds pretty awful. But that doesn't matter, because we can still understand voice as long as we have all the elements in the range given in this article. Voice data is always squashed into this small but usable range - it's a means of saving bandwidth. The range is known as the Voice Frequency (VF) band.

It's not about the entire spectral range of the human voice, which is "wider" at both ends as you've probably found - is this where the confusion arises? That information can be found at Human voice.

There is an article, Voiceband that covers exactly the same topic in a different article. These need to be merged into this article in order for the information to be all in one place. User:Thecheesykid

Support way past time to do this. W Nowicki (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We all appreciate the effort of whomever wrote this article, but this is the first time I have ever read an Wikipedia article and completely failed to understand what I was actually reading. I know my level of understanding may be stunted, but the article was so full of jargon that I cannot even tell if the article covers the topic that I am researching. Please simplify the article, if possible. In all seriousness, the article on the "Theory of Relativity" is more easily understood. Thanks in advance for your work. Cheers! Jaaches (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. 2001:980:CD32:1:89EE:B68D:7597:8EFF (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]