ATAs with CAT-iq and HD codec support
Can anyone recommend any ATAs with CAT-iq and HD codec support? We're thinking of a voice application for residential users that would offer HD-quality voice. I'm told that traditional analog phones are insufficient, and it appears that the best method for providing HD voice is either native IP to the phone or DECT's CAT-iq. Frank
Hi, even if some ATA would support g.722 the connected endpoint/phone also needs to be capable of HD voice quality.. I don?t know about CAT-iq dect but i think for voip you would need a native ip Phone (with hd support), no ata. Simply because analog telephones do not provide the audio quality needed for hd voice. Max M. Am 21.09.2011 04:05, schrieb Frank Bulk:
Can anyone recommend any ATAs with CAT-iq and HD codec support? We're thinking of a voice application for residential users that would offer HD-quality voice. I'm told that traditional analog phones are insufficient, and it appears that the best method for providing HD voice is either native IP to the phone or DECT's CAT-iq.
Frank
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- 42com Telecommunication GmbH Stra?e der Pariser Kommune 12-16 / D-10243 Berlin E-mail: mm at 42com.com Homepage: www.42com.com Firmenangaben/Company information: Handelsregister/Commercial register: Amtsgericht Berlin HRB 99071 B Umsatzsteuer-ID/VAT-ID: DE223812306, Gesch?ftsf?hrer/CEO: Thomas Reinig, Alexander Reinig Diese E-Mail enth?lt Informationen von 42com Telecommunication GmbH. Diese sind m?glicherweise vertraulich und ausschlie?lich f?r den Adressaten bestimmt. Sollten Sie diese elektronische Nachricht irrt?mlicherweise erhalten haben, so informieren Sie uns bitte unverz?glich telefonisch oder per E-Mail. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you have received this message in error, please delete the message and notify us immediately.
Siemens Gigaset for CAT-iq dect. I think the Fritz boxes also CAT-iq dect (combo box) AudioCodes also had a router/dect in the works at one stage, which might be of interest. ________________________________________ From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] on behalf of Max M?hlbronner [mm at 42com.com] Sent: Wednesday, 21 September 2011 6:35 PM To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] ATAs with CAT-iq and HD codec support Hi, even if some ATA would support g.722 the connected endpoint/phone also needs to be capable of HD voice quality.. I don?t know about CAT-iq dect but i think for voip you would need a native ip Phone (with hd support), no ata. Simply because analog telephones do not provide the audio quality needed for hd voice. Max M. Am 21.09.2011 04:05, schrieb Frank Bulk:
Can anyone recommend any ATAs with CAT-iq and HD codec support? We're thinking of a voice application for residential users that would offer HD-quality voice. I'm told that traditional analog phones are insufficient, and it appears that the best method for providing HD voice is either native IP to the phone or DECT's CAT-iq.
Frank
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- 42com Telecommunication GmbH Stra?e der Pariser Kommune 12-16 / D-10243 Berlin E-mail: mm at 42com.com Homepage: www.42com.com Firmenangaben/Company information: Handelsregister/Commercial register: Amtsgericht Berlin HRB 99071 B Umsatzsteuer-ID/VAT-ID: DE223812306, Gesch?ftsf?hrer/CEO: Thomas Reinig, Alexander Reinig Diese E-Mail enth?lt Informationen von 42com Telecommunication GmbH. Diese sind m?glicherweise vertraulich und ausschlie?lich f?r den Adressaten bestimmt. Sollten Sie diese elektronische Nachricht irrt?mlicherweise erhalten haben, so informieren Sie uns bitte unverz?glich telefonisch oder per E-Mail. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you have received this message in error, please delete the message and notify us immediately. _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
On 21-Sep-11 04:05, Max M?hlbronner wrote:
even if some ATA would support g.722 the connected endpoint/phone also needs to be capable of HD voice quality..
I don?t know about CAT-iq dect but i think for voip you would need a native ip Phone (with hd support), no ata.
Even a pure VoIP path is no guarantee; many IP phone manufacturers use such cheap components that their "wideband" audio doesn't sound as good as other IP phone manufacturers' "narrowband" does. Analog phones are probably even worse; the manufacturers /know/ that they're going to be plugged into the narrowband PSTN, so why would they think to use better components? S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
HDVoice is a topic quite close to my heart. I've been following some recent developments that may be of interest. First, the idea of an ATA that is G.722 (or otherwise HDVoice) capable=0Ais a little odd. Anything that would connect via RJ-11 would, by=0Adefinition, be built to PSTN standards and so NOT capable wideband Aaudio. Passing wideband to the PSTN would actually cause problems. Everything=0Awill filter the analog audio to meet the 3.4 KHz passband specified for 8 KHz sampling. However, Arris Corp claims that their cable CPE could be HDVoice capable=0Awith just a firmware upgrade. That CPE only provides an analog RJ type connection to the customer. Gigaset has stepped up and said that their DECT systems could, again=0Awith a firmware update, accept wideband analog audio via the RJ input. This means of taking cable customers to HDVoice could be cheaper than the other commonly suggested approach, which is to add a DECT/CATiq base radio to the cable CPE. That would mean rolling out large numbers of new CPE, at considerable cost.=0A=0ACable Labs have included DECT/CATiq in their ercent specs, providing a formal standard-based way to add HDVoice capability in cable CPE. Here's some related resources: http://www.hdvoicenews.com http://www.mgraves.org http://www.mgraves.org/2011/09/hdvoice-on-the-cheap-analog-rj-11-style/ http://www.mgraves.org/2011/08/q-how-will-cat-iq-help-hdvoice/ On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 21:05:24 -0500, Frank Bulk wrote:
Can anyone recommend any ATAs with CAT-iq and HD codec support? We're thinking of a voice application for residential users that would offer HD-quality voice. I'm told that traditional analog phones are insufficient, and it appears that the best method for providing HD voice is either native IP to the phone or DECT's CAT-iq.
Frank
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Michael Graves mgraves<at>mstvp.com http://www.mgraves.org o713-861-4005 c713-201-1262 sip:mgraves at mstvp.onsip.com skype mjgraves Twitter mjgraves
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Graves" <mgraves at mstvp.com> To: "VoiceOps at voiceops.org" <voiceops at voiceops.org>, frnkblk at iname.com Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 8:38:29 PM Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] ATAs with CAT-iq and HD codec support
HDVoice is a topic quite close to my heart. I've been following some recent developments that may be of interest.
First, the idea of an ATA that is G.722 (or otherwise HDVoice) capable=0Ais a little odd. Anything that would connect via RJ-11 would, by=0Adefinition, be built to PSTN standards and so NOT capable wideband Aaudio.
An analog handset will pass the analog signal with all of the fidelity of the microphone. The ATA could sample at a HD rate (22kHz ??) and present the additional data to the HD codec. Granted analog phones don't have the best microphone available but it will easily be able to out perform the current 4kHz limitations of the PSTN.
I've been given the impression by some folks that most analog phones don't do much better than 4 kHz. I wish there was more solid data out there. Frank -----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Matthew S. Crocker Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 6:38 AM To: VoiceOps at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] ATAs with CAT-iq and HD codec support ----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Graves" <mgraves at mstvp.com> To: "VoiceOps at voiceops.org" <voiceops at voiceops.org>, frnkblk at iname.com Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 8:38:29 PM Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] ATAs with CAT-iq and HD codec support
HDVoice is a topic quite close to my heart. I've been following some recent developments that may be of interest.
First, the idea of an ATA that is G.722 (or otherwise HDVoice) capable=0Ais a little odd. Anything that would connect via RJ-11 would, by=0Adefinition, be built to PSTN standards and so NOT capable wideband Aaudio.
An analog handset will pass the analog signal with all of the fidelity of the microphone. The ATA could sample at a HD rate (22kHz ??) and present the additional data to the HD codec. Granted analog phones don't have the best microphone available but it will easily be able to out perform the current 4kHz limitations of the PSTN. _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
On 09/23/2011 12:33 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
I've been given the impression by some folks that most analog phones don't do much better than 4 kHz. I wish there was more solid data out there.
It was my impression that there were electrical parameters to RJ-11 that limit the effective bearer frequency range, regardless of the fidelity of the microphone. -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC 260 Peachtree Street NW Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Tel: +1-678-954-0670 Fax: +1-404-961-1892 Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/
If it were the wiring, jacks, or configuration of the wiring, you wouldn't be able to use DSL, which works at much higher frequencies. There may be limitations of various handsets (especially with digital cordless phones, which digitally encode the signal to decode it at the other side, or key systems which do similar). I see no reason a modern set based on an electret mike wouldn't work nicer and wouldn't at least have a bit higher fidelity than that captured by G711u. I could see if they have lowpass filters that keep sounds < 3khz off the line, but filters won't always roll off fast and hard and should leave at least a few hundred more hz. On Sep 23, 2011, at 12:47 AM, Alex Balashov wrote:
On 09/23/2011 12:33 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
I've been given the impression by some folks that most analog phones don't do much better than 4 kHz. I wish there was more solid data out there.
It was my impression that there were electrical parameters to RJ-11 that limit the effective bearer frequency range, regardless of the fidelity of the microphone.
-- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC 260 Peachtree Street NW Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Tel: +1-678-954-0670 Fax: +1-404-961-1892 Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/ _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
On 09/23/2011 01:01 AM, Paul Timmins wrote:
If it were the wiring, jacks, or configuration of the wiring, you wouldn't be able to use DSL, which works at much higher frequencies.
No, I meant the electrical components on the handset side. -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC 260 Peachtree Street NW Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Tel: +1-678-954-0670 Fax: +1-404-961-1892 Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/
participants (8)
-
abalashov＠evaristesys.com -
frnkblk＠iname.com -
matthew＠corp.crocker.com -
mgraves＠mstvp.com -
mm＠42com.com -
paul＠timmins.net -
PChilds＠internode.com.au -
stephen＠sprunk.org