Something on your mind? Want to give us feedback on something in particular or everything in general? Tell us how we are doing!
#42182 by Soundjudgment
Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:09 pm
amoney wrote:I had perfect quality with my landline (as far as I am concerned that is HD).


You're joking, right? :shock: The two are nothing alike.
#42186 by VicMatson
Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:25 pm
Soundjudgment wrote:
amoney wrote:I had perfect quality with my landline (as far as I am concerned that is HD).


You're joking, right? :shock: The two are nothing alike.
I've used Skype's HD with a HD headset on both sides and it's amazing!

Landlines have codecs too.
#42511 by Davesworld
Tue Jan 19, 2010 3:17 am
Soundjudgment wrote:
amoney wrote:I had perfect quality with my landline (as far as I am concerned that is HD).


You're joking, right? :shock: The two are nothing alike.


POTS High Definition? I don't think even close with an upper frequency limit of 4khz? None of the speech codecs are really HD, in fact they are not even high fidelity, not 722 nor any of them. The 722 codec does cover a wider range of frequencies though, from 50hz to 8khz. Not sure anyone's voice is quite in the 50hz range and no handset would give you bass that low. What next? A transmission line bass loading like the Bose wave radio? Yes, that's the secret to the Wave radio, transmission line bass loading is all it is folks. Just think of tub thumping music while waiting on hold. The new Telo Wave handset by Bose? Nah, please don't. ;)
#42512 by Davesworld
Tue Jan 19, 2010 3:20 am
VicMatson wrote:So, Ooma's HD codec is the same as Skype's? If so it does sound great and will work with millions of their users!


Well, the codec would so feasibly a skype to Ooma 722 call should work so long as the whole path has at least the same or more sampling rate.
#42860 by Soundjudgment
Thu Jan 21, 2010 6:27 am
Davesworld wrote:
VicMatson wrote:So, Ooma's HD codec is the same as Skype's? If so it does sound great and will work with millions of their users!


Well, the codec would so feasibly a skype to Ooma 722 call should work so long as the whole path has at least the same or more sampling rate.


Also keep in mind that even with the use of G7.22 on Ooma to Ooma calls, there is absolutely no guarantee that any of that extra 'high quality' audio won't be shaped and filtered out as soon as the Ooma servers hit some of those old Telco switch centers. It will be a looooooong time coming before any such gateways can demonstrate high-quality codec audio from far-end to far-end. Old-time Telcos expect generations of its users to be used to the 3K audio limitations enjoyed for decades, so they will continue to deliver on such narrow-constraints to the masses.

The tendency of many Telcos is to limit bandwidth as much as possible to save on traffic and transmission space down the pipeline. And when it comes to call hand-offs to Cell-phone COs? FORGET IT! That is a sonic mine-field all its own. :cool:
#42874 by Groundhound
Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:56 am
Soundjudgment wrote:Also keep in mind that even with the use of G7.22 on Ooma to Ooma calls, there is absolutely no guarantee that any of that extra 'high quality' audio won't be shaped and filtered out as soon as the Ooma servers hit some of those old Telco switch centers.

Why would an Ooma to Ooma call involve a Telco switch center?
#43201 by Soundjudgment
Thu Jan 21, 2010 6:01 pm
Nono, I am saying that *aside* (that is a better word) from any actual Ooma to Ooma calls made, *most* calls are made to land-line phones and/or cell-phones. And there is where most of the audio 'destruction' takes place.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests