Something on your mind? Want to give us feedback on something in particular or everything in general? Tell us how we are doing!
#40170 by Groundhound
Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:24 pm
In the blog, this teaser posted today: . Sounds like the wideband codec for the Telo handset, G.722 or some variant, is to be part of the new feature news. This would be for calls between phones that both support this codec, as I understand it.
#40212 by Davesworld
Tue Jan 05, 2010 3:42 am
It would be direct end to end, the entire path has to support the sampling or the ata will negotiate a lower codec. Of course the letters HD are added to things as a buzzword. If this were twenty years ago, it'd be called Turbo Voice even though no turbines are used. Hmmm.... adding a turbine generator to the telo handset might work if you blow enough wind while speaking except for the whirring noise. You could greatly extend the battery life. Oooh, source of energy from Capitol Hill? Think of the gigawatts we could create.
#40265 by VicMatson
Tue Jan 05, 2010 9:55 am
I would be happy with G.711, but G.722 might be a way for Ooma to get business because both ends need it. And I don't know if anyone looked at the prices of SIP HD phones, but they are pricey.

I wonder if Google Voice supports it?
#40721 by amoney
Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:03 pm
I think the HD buzz word is way over used today. As far as I am concerned, my old landline (may it rest in peace) sounded crytal clear and true. Note Ooma and everyone else advertise voip to be equal or better than an landline quality. All I want is Ooma to match that and I would be very impressed. As a critic, I can honestly say I can notice a subtle difference in the connection (static upon connection, sound quality varying, etc.). I understand the backend of the system and that Ooma relys on other third parties. Anyone remember how international calls use to sound. Many tanks to modern digital technologies to make that feat sound incredible. Truly impressive considering what it use to sound like. VOIP although digital has to compete with lots of other bandwidth traffic, and worst, bottlenecks. Not to mention cullular netowrk performance can vary itself. I remember my Analog cell phone doing a better job, good old analog, digital compression is not always a good thing but thats the compromise to fit more in a given bandwidth.

So when I heard these new catch phrases Ooma Pure Voice, HD Voice..., I have reservations (given Oomas track record of meeting expectactions).

Bottom line. I had perfect quality with my landline (as far as I am concerned that is HD). Ooma advertises they could provide that with lower cost. So all that I want is that quality and I dont want to be told that I need to pay more inorder to get better quality. You know what I am getting at?
#41502 by Groundhound
Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:06 pm
Thanks Bobby, that will be interesting to hear. Will the HD codec and True Voice be implemented at the same time?
Here's an article that has some more details: .
#41556 by Bobby B
Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:30 pm
PureVoice will likely come out before HD Voice. Most of the development for PureVoice has been completed - most of the work now is to update our production transcoding servers to support the feature.

HD Voice has a bit more work to go. Right now it only works with higher end corded phones (usually valued >$30) because most cordless handsets cannot support wideband codecs. Right now, we're evaluating the work that needs to be done to try to support HD voice on the Ooma Telo handset.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests