Something on your mind? Want to give us feedback on something in particular or everything in general? Tell us how we are doing!
#25548 by FacePlant
Sun Oct 11, 2009 7:56 am
Allow user to choose to use Ooma's uncompressed codec as a default under Preferences.

I find that call sound quality is improved quite a bit if I dial *99 prior to placing a call (especially for the recipient). I actually make my wife do this before she calls me at work. Only problem is that I can only do this on outgoing calls. When people call me the compressed codec is automatically used. I often tell people I will call them back (using *99) and the majority of them comment that I sound better.

It seems that this is already an approved and used codec for OOMA. Why not let the users use it all the time if they have the bandwidth to support it.
#25803 by doug
Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:04 pm
Bobby B wrote:Thanks for the suggestion - we'll be enabling this feature by early November.


When this option is set, will it apply to incoming calls too? Please say yes...
#25814 by Davesworld
Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:13 pm
g.711 is still a companding lossy codec so the assertion of it being uncompressed is not quite true. g.711 also has an 4khz upper limit just as iLBC does but this does not mean it isn't better in quality than iLBC because even though slightly, the g.711 is indeed better IF you have a good quality connection.

g.711 does require less processing power than either iLBC or g.729 (the latter is not used by ooma). Audio bandwidth is determined by the sampling rate, not the bit rate. In a nutshell, the sampling has to be double that of the desired upper frequency limit for waveform reconstruction.

In contrast, the g.722 codec which will be used for ooma's HD voice has a sampling of 32khz resulting in an 8khz upper audio limit. It also will only do you any good if the person on the other end is also using the g.722 codec.

g.711 is slightly better in MOS than either iLBC (ooma) or g.729 (used by most voip carriers) if you have a very good connection, no packet loss, very low latency etc. Unless you have a T1 line, you are not using a carrier grade connection, yes, if you wonder why a 1.5mbs T1 line costs so much that is why. Our consumer grade internet connections vary a bit from one to the next. Some can be quite good though. My DSL line has shown no packet loss and 47 milliseconds latency consistently but is not guaranteed to always perform at that level.

The real shiner with iLBC is how forgiving it is to packet loss but it is not good for faxing at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_opinion_score

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.711

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_L ... Rate_Codec

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_audio_codecs
#26030 by Bobby B
Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:58 pm
This "fax mode" feature will be configurable for all accounts. It'll force the uncompressed G711 codec on both your incoming and outgoing calls (so that you don't need to dial *99).

As Davesworld mentions - the default iLBC codec is better for voice in most situations because of it's ability to maintain high quality voice calls when there's packet loss.
#28026 by EBoon
Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:40 am
Darn, I just always thought that the *99 feature just gave me a less compressed version of what I was using for voice - didn't realize that it was actually a different codec. Sounds like just turning this on for normal every day use may not be the best thing to do. What I was hoping for was a way to just use less compression (and pay the cost of higher bandwidth) for all of my voice phone calls since I have plenty of bandwidth. I have heard of a similar feature available to Vonage users that allowed them to use a slider and increase (or decrease) the compression to fit their needs. Not sure if that is even possible with the iLBC codec.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 5 guests