Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: NANOG: users

VoIP/Mobile Codecs (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)

 

 

NANOG users RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


sean at seanharlow

May 2, 2012, 2:40 PM

Post #1 of 3 (264 views)
Permalink
VoIP/Mobile Codecs (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)

On May 2, 2012, at 16:10, Jeroen van Aart wrote:

> Technical specs aside I believe you are mistaken with regards to the actual every day reality. My experience (and anyone else I talked to) calling to and from mobile phones has been 100% a bad one with regards to audio quality. I know the bandwidth allows for better quality, but carriers don't do it, they do the opposite.
>
> Why else would a mobile phone carrier feel the need to advertise an "HD" (shouldn't it be "HIFI"?) quality line (i.e. a quality that's standard with every land line and already suboptimal):
>
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402598,00.asp
>
> "Sprint Brings HD Voice Calls to U.S."

Originally, you said VoIP and cellular used bad codecs. I responded that any decent VoIP provider supports codecs equaling or beating landlines. I didn't say anything about cellular. A G.711 call over a solid internet connection will sound entirely identical to any landline telephone call that leaves the local analog facilities and a G.722 call will make G.711 and thus landlines sound like cellular by comparison.

The cellular world works with less bandwidth and more loss than the VoIP world usually deals with, so while us VoIP guys sometimes use their codecs (GSM for example) they don't tend to bother with ours. That said, the article you link is talking about the same sort of improvements by doubling the sampling rate, so the end result is similar.
---
Sean Harlow
sean [at] seanharlow


jeroen at mompl

May 2, 2012, 4:39 PM

Post #2 of 3 (233 views)
Permalink
Re: VoIP/Mobile Codecs (was Re: Operation Ghost Click) [In reply to]

Sean Harlow wrote:
> Originally, you said VoIP and cellular used bad codecs.

Yeah, I overlooked that important detail, sorry.

> The cellular world works with less bandwidth and more loss than the VoIP world usually deals with, so while us VoIP guys sometimes use their codecs (GSM for example) they don't tend to bother with ours.

Agreed.

> That said, the article you link is talking about the same sort of improvements by doubling the sampling rate, so the end result is similar.

Yes, but it shouldn't be necessary to offer these "HD" services as an
extra. It should be standard.

Greetings,
Jeroen

--
Earthquake Magnitude: 4.0
Date: Wednesday, May 2, 2012 12:33:29 UTC
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada region
Latitude: 50.6619; Longitude: -129.8861
Depth: 10.00 km


ralph.brandt at pateam

May 3, 2012, 8:06 AM

Post #3 of 3 (232 views)
Permalink
RE: VoIP/Mobile Codecs (was Re: Operation Ghost Click) [In reply to]

I am not worried about the voice quality as long as it is understandable. What I am concerned about is, "Can someone who needs help get through?



Ralph Brandt


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeroen van Aart [mailto:jeroen [at] mompl]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 7:40 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: VoIP/Mobile Codecs (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)

Sean Harlow wrote:
> Originally, you said VoIP and cellular used bad codecs.

Yeah, I overlooked that important detail, sorry.

> The cellular world works with less bandwidth and more loss than the VoIP world usually deals with, so while us VoIP guys sometimes use their codecs (GSM for example) they don't tend to bother with ours.

Agreed.

> That said, the article you link is talking about the same sort of improvements by doubling the sampling rate, so the end result is similar.

Yes, but it shouldn't be necessary to offer these "HD" services as an
extra. It should be standard.

Greetings,
Jeroen

--
Earthquake Magnitude: 4.0
Date: Wednesday, May 2, 2012 12:33:29 UTC
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada region
Latitude: 50.6619; Longitude: -129.8861
Depth: 10.00 km

NANOG users RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.