nanog mailing list archives
VoIP/Mobile Codecs (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)
From: Sean Harlow <sean () seanharlow info>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 17:40:02 -0400
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 () seanharlow info
Current thread:
- Cellphones and Audio (was Ghost Click, though I got no idea why), (continued)
- Cellphones and Audio (was Ghost Click, though I got no idea why) Jay Ashworth (May 02)
- Re: Cellphones and Audio (was Ghost Click, though I got no idea why) Adam Atkinson (May 02)
- Re: Cellphones and Audio (was Ghost Click, though I got no idea why) Robert Bonomi (May 03)
- Re: Cellphones and Audio (was Ghost Click, though I got no idea why) Jay Ashworth (May 03)
- Re: Cellphones and Audio (was Ghost Click, though I got no idea why) Valdis . Kletnieks (May 03)
- RE: Cellphones and Audio (was Ghost Click, though I got no idea why) Brandt, Ralph (May 03)
- RE: Cellphones and Audio (was Ghost Click, though I got no idea why) Brandt, Ralph (May 03)
- Re: Cellphones and Audio (was Ghost Click, though I got no idea why) Adam Atkinson (May 03)
- Re: Cellphones and Audio (was Ghost Click, though I got no idea why) Jay Ashworth (May 03)
- Re: Cellphones and Audio (was Ghost Click, though I got no idea why) Joel jaeggli (May 03)
- VoIP/Mobile Codecs (was Re: Operation Ghost Click) Sean Harlow (May 02)
- Re: VoIP/Mobile Codecs (was Re: Operation Ghost Click) Jeroen van Aart (May 02)
- RE: VoIP/Mobile Codecs (was Re: Operation Ghost Click) Brandt, Ralph (May 03)
- VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click) Jared Mauch (May 02)
- Re: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click) William Herrin (May 02)
- Re: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click) Jared Mauch (May 02)
- Re: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click) Jeroen van Aart (May 02)
- Re: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click) Jay Ashworth (May 02)
- RE: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click) Brandt, Ralph (May 03)
- The Compexity Factor (was VoIP v POTS) Jay Ashworth (May 03)
- RE: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click) Brandt, Ralph (May 03)