Do British Courts still require a Stenographer using stenographic/stenomask machine?

Peter Brooks said:

Can we increase text transmission speeds through the internet using coding similar to that used by a stenographer?

Did you ever come across "quinkey" keyboards? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwriter

   - Andy.

Hello Andy:

No I have never heard about the Microwriter.

I have been waiting to expand my original thread into two directions.

One relates to the introduction of technology into the office - as we moved from big typing pools with the top bosses demanding personal secretaries with shorthand/steno capabilities, up to today, where most people create their own letters and reports, using personal PC's.

Personal secretaries have just become gate keepers outside the big boss's door.

The other direction relates to the creation of applications for 6G .

The IEEE recently published in their "Proceeding" magazine, research work on improved encoding/decoding of data sent through a wireless channel 

At the present time the internet is used as a straight funnel for the information (outside of creating packets).

These encoding/decoding schemes would then increase throughput.

Thus my original question was an example of old technology being used to capture data at higher and higher rates.

Peter Brooks 

Palm Bay  

My experience of the first item is that personal secretaries are now a rare thing. We have a few administration assistants, but those are a shared resource for multiple people rather then being dedicated and they sit in the same area as the rest of us (as do most the senior managers).

We are probably a special case as we don't have any personal offices. Only meeting rooms. I would imagine there are still other organisations where the directors and CEO have personal offices with an assistant nearby (but likely shared).

On the second item, you may want to research something called "HTTP compression". Most websites (including the IETs) support compression of the data (usually gzip). I would expect there is still development ongoing in this field to find better and more efficient compression algorithms.

The current algorithms do not provide any real saving for content that is already compressed. So it is really only the text that is being compressed. The question here is, would stenography be able to make the transmission of digitised speech more efficient? I suspect not  due to the method of digitisation.

the most efficient way of encoding speech is the AMR/ambiwave type  codec,that breaks the signal down into near vocal elements - at the other end in effect a speech synthesizer puts it back together - all that is sent is the co-ordinates of that  vowel type for example, in a sense you are not really hearing the person, more of a synthesis of them. This is what happens on a GSM or 3g voice call - 4g is more complex as even voice goes as IP .

There are codecs of greater or lesser intelligibility  for  more or less bandwidth, and in military use, ones optimized for male or female speech.


The penalty is that for any other sort of sound such as music, its pretty rubbish.

Mike.

the most efficient way of encoding speech is the AMR/ambiwave type  codec,that breaks the signal down into near vocal elements - at the other end in effect a speech synthesizer puts it back together - all that is sent is the co-ordinates of that  vowel type for example, in a sense you are not really hearing the person, more of a synthesis of them. This is what happens on a GSM or 3g voice call - 4g is more complex as even voice goes as IP .

There are codecs of greater or lesser intelligibility  for  more or less bandwidth, and in military use, ones optimized for male or female speech.


The penalty is that for any other sort of sound such as music, its pretty rubbish.

Mike.

In the late 1960's the BBC developed a variation of the stenographers keyboard for typing directly on-screen as a means of real-time subtitling.  I worked quite well but as far as subtitling went it was ahead of it's time, live subtitles had a relatively low priority then.