G.722 Wideband Audio Coming to Cisco SMB Phones
May 26, 2009 by Garrett Smith
First mentioned on the must-read Voxilla blog, Cisco will soon be offering G.722 “High Definition” voice codec support on the Cisco SPA525G desktop IP phone.
Cisco is also alluding to the possibility of G.722 wideband audio support for other popular Linksys / Cisco SPA-9XX models as well. The firmware update to enable G.722 support is expected shortly.
5 Comments
G722 is a real gimic IMHO. the PSTN still works at G711 so no matter what you do if you use break out for voice calls to someone that isn’t on the VOIP system you won’t get the benfits that G722 are supposed to give you as the call will default to G711.. Yes, G722 sounds better than G711, it is slightly richer sound (I have access to full blown CUCM from Cisco to test both codecs, well if you can you call G711 a codec, as its not really a codec in the true sense of the term, it is a PCM standard but G722 is more like a true codec) but will your users notice…. well ours didn’t…. and not all devices support it even in the enterprise market.
I think this is really a marketing tool to use to say, “well with G722 you get better than PSTN quailty voice” but in truth if you are talking to the PSTN you only get PSTN quailty voice anyway…..so you will default the system to using G711 otherwise you may get complaints from a user that says “when I call Sam in Accounts the voice is great but then when I call my mum the quality isn’t as good why is that?” Its a headache waiting to happen….
@ Dave:
I don’t know if “gimmick” is the right term. I think “far off” might be a better term to describe the use and promise of wideband codecs. As voice communications further transition to “all IP” the promise of HD voice will be fully realized. But that’s still far off.
HI Garrett,
Even if we all went to “All IP” tomorrow the amount of different codecs available to users is considerable and therefore the difference in quality is considerable. Some users will want to only use low bandwidth codec like the G792 or iLBC and others will think they have set their systems up to only use G722 but in reality the lowest codec will always work or the call will fail. If I have two end points and one is configured to only use G729a and the other is configured to only use G722 the call will not pass the negotiation phase and therefore fail to set up. If however I say my preferred codec at one end is G729a and my preferred codec at the other is G722 then the call will set up as the lowest preferred codec of G729a and the person at the G722 end will look and say why is the quality of this call so poor compared to my last call. SO if you do have customers wanting this as I say it is a headache waiting to happen, as soon as an end user starts to think the quality of some calls is better than others you have a massive issue trying to either find a way around it or trying to explain the differences in the calls that look exactly the same to the end user. It is a support nightmare that I wouldnāt want to be stuck in the middle of.
Anyway as you say āall IPā is some way off in fact so far G722 will probably be surpassed by the time it ever comes, in fact if it ever comes. You have to look at the current infrastructure for most PSTN in the world, they are all based on TDM, they may have an IP core to transit across but at the point the call enters the local loop it is TDM and TDM is based on G711 and really canāt be changed. So without massive investment in not only the core of PSTN systems there would also have to be a massive investment at the edge of PSTN systems and at the consumers home. I just donāt see Granny getting a SIP end point in the rest of her life time to be honest I donāt see my sister getting or understanding one either, SIP and IP phones in the home are some way off and only the technology savvy consumers are going to be bothered with the hassle and benefits that an āall IP ā system would bring.
Just to understand I did my sister in law a favour this week installing a Cisco PAP2T connecting to VoIPfone (other sip carriers are available) in her hosted regus office and it took me three days to get through to the IT dept why they were blocking the ports and how to unblock them, no one wants to make this stuff easyā¦apart from usI
But I do take your point on in an “ALL IP” high bandwidth world G722 makes great sense……. I just don’t see an “all IP” world in my lifetime….
I think it depends on how you’re going to use the phone. For example a lot of people use G.722 in the VoIP Users Conference (http://www.vuc.me) every week, and it certainly makes the conference a lot more enjoyable for those using it.
I think the recording is done in a quality that also shows the users using G.722 and those who are still on G.711 or G.729, so for that kind of application, the G.722 will certainly sound a lot better for those people who listen via podcast.
And no, we’re not all going to be moving to VoIP tomorrow, but when it happens, because G.722 will have been around long enough (and devices that have it aren’t really all that much more expensive), it’ll likely be like upgrading your CRT to an LCD screen, but for voice.
So we were under the impression HD Codecs G.722 wouldn’t work on a PRI to PRI call…
PBX1 has a PRI (tw)
PBX2 has a PRI (tw)
Both running G.722
We called between each other and We get HD Codec to pass over the PRI.
Pretty Cool…