difference between the voice quality of "1x" phone to the voice quality of older CDMA phon

Is there really a (substantial) difference between the voice quality of "1x"
phone to the voice quality of older CDMA phone.



Is it better or worse? Also if worse is there a tweak to force it into a
different voice codec?

---

› See More: difference between the voice quality of "1x" phone to the voice quality of older CDMA phon

Roopinder Randhawa wrote:
> Is there really a (substantial) difference between the voice quality of "1x"
> phone to the voice quality of older CDMA phone.
>
>
>
> Is it better or worse? Also if worse is there a tweak to force it into a
> different voice codec?

I can't say the official sound difference, but with what I have noticed,
"CDMA 2000" sounded good, but "CDMA 2000 1x" makes it sound like the
other caller is at the end of a long empty hallway (minus the echo), and
it got much harder to differentiate voices (for example, I have three
friends who use a single CDMA 2000 1x phone, and I CANNOT tell the
difference between their voices on the handset, at all). I find these
differences in hansets from Auidovox, Nokia, Kyocera, and LG phones. I
don't know anybody with Samsung or Motorola 1x phones.

==AD

CDMA 2000 and CDMA 2000 1X are the same. Personally, I really can't tell
the difference for the systems, I think the handset is more likely
responsible for sound quality. Samsung phones tend to sound much better
than other phones, while Kyocera with the Smart Sound turned on is probably
the best option if you are often in really loud areas.

GM

"Aboutdakota" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Roopinder Randhawa wrote:
> > Is there really a (substantial) difference between the voice quality of
"1x"
> > phone to the voice quality of older CDMA phone.
> >
> >
> >
> > Is it better or worse? Also if worse is there a tweak to force it into a
> > different voice codec?
>
> I can't say the official sound difference, but with what I have noticed,
> "CDMA 2000" sounded good, but "CDMA 2000 1x" makes it sound like the
> other caller is at the end of a long empty hallway (minus the echo), and
> it got much harder to differentiate voices (for example, I have three
> friends who use a single CDMA 2000 1x phone, and I CANNOT tell the
> difference between their voices on the handset, at all). I find these
> differences in hansets from Auidovox, Nokia, Kyocera, and LG phones. I
> don't know anybody with Samsung or Motorola 1x phones.
>
> ==AD
>

"G M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> CDMA 2000 and CDMA 2000 1X are the same. Personally, I really can't tell
> the difference for the systems, I think the handset is more likely
> responsible for sound quality. Samsung phones tend to sound much better
> than other phones, while Kyocera with the Smart Sound turned on is
probably
> the best option if you are often in really loud areas.
>

I haven't heard any difference, either, but am finding the extra system
capacity a boon in a couple of areas that are normally swamped during rush
hour.


--
Thomas M. Goethe


> GM
>
> "Aboutdakota" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > Roopinder Randhawa wrote:
> > > Is there really a (substantial) difference between the voice quality
of
> "1x"
> > > phone to the voice quality of older CDMA phone.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Is it better or worse? Also if worse is there a tweak to force it into
a
> > > different voice codec?
> >
> > I can't say the official sound difference, but with what I have noticed,
> > "CDMA 2000" sounded good, but "CDMA 2000 1x" makes it sound like the
> > other caller is at the end of a long empty hallway (minus the echo), and
> > it got much harder to differentiate voices (for example, I have three
> > friends who use a single CDMA 2000 1x phone, and I CANNOT tell the
> > difference between their voices on the handset, at all). I find these
> > differences in hansets from Auidovox, Nokia, Kyocera, and LG phones. I
> > don't know anybody with Samsung or Motorola 1x phones.
> >
> > ==AD
> >
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
Thomas M. Goethe <[email protected]> wrote:
> I haven't heard any difference, either, but am finding the extra system
>capacity a boon in a couple of areas that are normally swamped during rush
>hour.

You must be smoking crack. The EVRC coder used in CDMA 2000 sounds
like horse****. It's very dead tonally compared to GSM's EFR or the old
13k Qualcomm CDMA coder. The only problem with the Qualcomm 13k coder is
it doesn't render the "s" sound well.

By the way, I had an opportunity to sample the new AMR coder used by
Cingular in their GSM 850 rollout. It is actually quite good. In fact, I
could not tell the different between it and my T-Mobile phone. The
Samsung handset I was testing actually sounded a little bit better than
the Nokia 8390 I use on T-Mobile.

RDT
--
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
--- Sir Winston Churchill

Never smoked crack. Welcome to the kill list.

""RDT"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Thomas M. Goethe <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I haven't heard any difference, either, but am finding the extra
system
> >capacity a boon in a couple of areas that are normally swamped during
rush
> >hour.
>
> You must be smoking crack. The EVRC coder used in CDMA 2000 sounds
> like horse****. It's very dead tonally compared to GSM's EFR or the old
> 13k Qualcomm CDMA coder. The only problem with the Qualcomm 13k coder is
> it doesn't render the "s" sound well.
>
> By the way, I had an opportunity to sample the new AMR coder used by
> Cingular in their GSM 850 rollout. It is actually quite good. In fact, I
> could not tell the different between it and my T-Mobile phone. The
> Samsung handset I was testing actually sounded a little bit better than
> the Nokia 8390 I use on T-Mobile.
>
> RDT
> --
> "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
> inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
> --- Sir Winston Churchill
>

Previously on alt.cellular.verizon, Roopinder Randhawa said:

; Is there really a (substantial) difference between the voice quality of "1x"
; phone to the voice quality of older CDMA phone.

My subjective opinion is that my Kyocera 7135 with 1X sounds better
than my previous phone, a Motorola T720. There was no indication on
the phone or manual that the T720 used 1X. Of course, the T720 is a
piece of crap, so it could have just been the phone and not the lack of
1X...

--
Jeffrey Kaplan <*> www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled <*> Send personal mail to gordol

"Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word 'safe' that I
wasn't previously aware of." (HHGGTG, Douglas Adams)

"Jeffrey Kaplan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Previously on alt.cellular.verizon, Roopinder Randhawa said:
>
> ; Is there really a (substantial) difference between the voice quality of
"1x"
> ; phone to the voice quality of older CDMA phone.
>
> My subjective opinion is that my Kyocera 7135 with 1X sounds better
> than my previous phone, a Motorola T720. There was no indication on
> the phone or manual that the T720 used 1X. Of course, the T720 is a
> piece of crap, so it could have just been the phone and not the lack of
> 1X...

The T720, if it was a CDMA version, is 1x, but, obviously, only if 1x
service is available.

I'm using a V60i, a StarTac 7868 and a T720 on Alltel and a T720 on VZW
at the moment and I can't see any problems with 1x. This is in an area where
we have both Alltel and VZW 1x. My wife, who has better ears than I do,
thinks the 720 sounds as good as the StarTac. She refused to use a Kyocera
2035, as did I. We both felt it has poor audio.

Knocking on wood, the 720's have been ok for us. I already had cables
and chargers, so I took a chance.

Would love to try the 7135. If I still used Palm OS, I am pretty sure I
would want one.


--
Thomas M. Goethe

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:03:41 -0500, Jeffrey Kaplan <[email protected]>
wrote:

>My subjective opinion is that my Kyocera 7135 with 1X sounds better
>than my previous phone, a Motorola T720. There was no indication on
>the phone or manual that the T720 used 1X. Of course, the T720 is a
>piece of crap, so it could have just been the phone and not the lack of
>1X...

Again, subjective here...but my LG VX4400 sounds better to me than my
old Nokia 5185i. I know for sure that Nokia didn't have 1X.

Like you, I don't know if the improved audio quality is the result of
the phone or the network.

Mike

"Roopinder Randhawa" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Is there really a (substantial) difference between the voice quality of "1x"
> phone to the voice quality of older CDMA phone.
>
>
>
> Is it better or worse? Also if worse is there a tweak to force it into a
> different voice codec?

I have yet to discover anyway to tell if 1x is even being used for
voice. I know it can be, but my Verizon sources have told me it's only
being used for data here in SF California. Some of the phones come out
of the box detecting the 1x network and displaying 1x and some don't,
but that sure doesn't mean it's used. Kind of like the unsupported GPS
feature. It's displayed but not supported with the E911 base equipment
yet, at least around here.

So unless someone has a Verizon 1X voice map, a news article about 1x
voice deployment on Verizon or a debug menu to check during a voice
call, I'm not yet convinced it's being used widely, except for fast
data connections and to light up that 1x icon on the some handset
displays.

-
David

"David L" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Roopinder Randhawa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > Is there really a (substantial) difference between the voice quality of
"1x"
> > phone to the voice quality of older CDMA phone.
> >
> >
> >
> > Is it better or worse? Also if worse is there a tweak to force it into a
> > different voice codec?
>
> I have yet to discover anyway to tell if 1x is even being used for
> voice. I know it can be, but my Verizon sources have told me it's only
> being used for data here in SF California. Some of the phones come out
> of the box detecting the 1x network and displaying 1x and some don't,
> but that sure doesn't mean it's used. Kind of like the unsupported GPS
> feature. It's displayed but not supported with the E911 base equipment
> yet, at least around here.
>

I was told, but am unsure if I can believe, that the entire VZW network
has been converted to 1x and that if your phone has 1x, it will take
advantage of it. It is supposed to double network voice capability as well
as provide faster data. I do know I wasn't able to get a picture out from a
location that wasn't showing as roaming or extended network using 1x and had
to use qnc instead. That would imply that all of VZW is not yet 1x in my
area.

I also use Alltel in Tampa, FL area and most of their stuff is 1x and
they say the handsets are using it. Again, the issue is that it adds
capacity, so there is a motivation for the carriers to implement it. In most
cases, they can change some equipment at the tower and they are good to go.
The new stuff is backward compatible and it saves the costs of new towers,
transmitters and fights with neighborhood associations.

One issue I have not been able to get resolved is whether 1x data has
any roam capability. No one can provide an answer at either Alltel or VZW.
My suspicion is that there isn't.


--
Thomas M. Goethe

On 12 Dec 2003 03:21:18 -0800, [email protected] (David L) wrote:

>So unless someone has a Verizon 1X voice map, a news article about 1x
>voice deployment on Verizon or a debug menu to check during a voice
>call, I'm not yet convinced it's being used widely, except for fast
>data connections and to light up that 1x icon on the some handset
>displays.

In the field test screens, buried within the Menu 0 - code 000000
section of my LG VX4400 (then menu option 2 - 1), it always shows this
on a 1X network:

P_REV_IN_USE 6

It's my understanding that "6" means the 1X network is being used.

Mike

Previously on alt.cellular.verizon, Thomas M. Goethe said:

; The T720, if it was a CDMA version, is 1x, but, obviously, only if 1x
; service is available.

Yes, it was CDMA, on Verizon. But, as I said, I saw no reference to 1x
anywhere in the docs, or in the display. By the same token, I see no
reference to 1x in the docs for my Kyo 7135, which prompted me to ask
what the "1X" in the display (where the docs say a "D" should be)
meant. It can be assumed that if I had seen it before, I'd have known
by then. The T720 was my previous phone, which was an alleged upgrade
from a CDMA StarTac 7868.

; Would love to try the 7135. If I still used Palm OS, I am pretty sure I
; would want one.

I showed it to a buddy of mine last week. He wants one. But
unfortunately for him, he works for Nokia.

--
Jeffrey Kaplan <*> www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled <*> Send personal mail to gordol

Giraffiti: Vandalism spray-painted very, very high.

"Jeffrey Kaplan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Yes, it was CDMA, on Verizon. But, as I said, I saw no reference to 1x
> anywhere in the docs, or in the display. By the same token, I see no
> reference to 1x in the docs for my Kyo 7135, which prompted me to ask
> what the "1X" in the display (where the docs say a "D" should be)
> meant. It can be assumed that if I had seen it before, I'd have known
> by then. The T720 was my previous phone, which was an alleged upgrade
> from a CDMA StarTac 7868.

Actually, my wife is finding better service with the Alltel T720 than
with her StarTac. She drives through an area that is really bad during drive
time and has far less trouble getting a line which I suspect has to do with
the extra capacity of 1x.

But yes, there were a lot of horrendous issues with the T720 on VZW,
especially the early ones.



--
Thomas M. Goethe