View Full Version : G.729 and G.711 is so awful and awfully dated, Where's G.722?

03-13-2014, 11:33 PM
When will HD voice be active? It seems everywhere I go mobile carriers are moving to HD VoIP themselves and using some some repackaged version of G.722 to make it compatible on there networks to replace the old gsm and g.711. The GSM, G.729 and G.711 codecs certainly need to die and hopefully a quick and painful death.

AT&T is supposed to have HD voice via VoLTE late this year but Verizon is to have it released the first half of this year. Sprint is supposed to be releasing this year as well but its seems further confirmation was not able to be retrieved to fully confirm it.

What saddens me is the most VoIP equipment produced in the last 5 years already supports G.722 and all it would take is turning it on and fixing a few bugs and iron out a few wrinkles and its good to go. However, it seems most VoIP providers have been complacent when to comes to adopting new technologies. Hold on here I said new technologies and G.722 is not new and the codec was finalized in 1989. Plus in the past 8 years we have had broadband that can easily use the G.722 codec.

So with this info in mind it seems most VoIP companies are behind the curve and its time to catch up. G.722 doesn't use much more bandwidth and last I checked it was just half an Kilobyte more.

So again I ask when will G.722 be available? Is there a beta I can use? If so could you add it to my account to use the codec?

BTW Callcentric already has G.722 available. Been playing around with it and the difference is remarkable. Although it isn't true HD there is still a noticeable difference when I speak pots line users and is awesome when I speak to another G.722 user.

03-15-2014, 06:39 PM
At this time only support G.711 because that's the only codec most of our carrier partners support. We're not able to offer it if our carrier partners do not support it.

03-16-2014, 02:08 PM
At this time only support G.711 because that's the only codec most of our carrier partners support. We're not able to offer it if our carrier partners do not support it.

Well I hope that this changes extremely soon. If Not I feel Ooma is calling my name. Are there any plans to get this implemented in the next 4 months? Are you considering changing partners to get the G.722 supported. I mean if your partners won't move forward maybe Voipo should consider some other partners that are willing to move forward.

Anyhow at the end of the day its about what the customer wants and I want G.722. As much as I hate proprietary devices but I think Ooma is going to to suit me best for the time being until other VoIP companies decide they don't want to lag behind anymore. The only way that's going to happen is if I talk with my money so with that in mind I feel Ooma is the better solution. Hopefully, this will prompt Voipo and others companies to think twice and start implementing what customers want. I know that I'm only one person but as we all know word of mouth is powerful so I'll be letting others know of Ooma. I would've like it to be Voipo instead that I was spreading the word about. The fact that your carrier partners not wanting to move forward is not my problem and it is up to the company to overcome such obstacles and provide what customers want.

10-26-2014, 12:53 AM
Just wanted to say I have similar feelings.

We've been a VOIPo customer going on five or six years now (at least), and while we've been happy, it does seem like voice quality is not as good as it could be or should be.

I'd love to see some wideband/HD Voice codecs (G.722) supported as configurable options. I realize that if a call has to traverse the PSTN that the quality will drop to G.711, but I presume that the use of PSTN, at least as an end-point, is diminishing.

Also, you could look at it this way. If you supported "HD Voice" (e.g. G.722), it could become a marketing tactic and, if it was advertised the same as the cellular companies who support it (only works for sure between calls terminated on the same carrier) it could encourage your current customer base to recommend VOIPo to the friends and relatives they communicate with frequently, so they can at least enjoy a significantly better communication experience when talking to each other.

Also, FWIW, I'm noticing a delay component that's considerably worse (almost a full second) for calls terminated with VOIPo. If I make the same call using RingTo (GrooveIP) with all other puzzle pieces being identical, the delay component is noticeably less (e.g. about half a second).

10-27-2014, 03:42 PM
The main hurdle is getting carriers to support it from end to end on their networks. Then providers like Voipo can pretty much just turn it on at any time.

One nice thing about G.722 is that it really doesn't use any more bandwidth that G.711. So it's a win-win.

I'm not sure why carriers are so slow to implement it, since the patents have expired, and it is a fairly simple thing to add or enable it on existing systems.

In my estimation and opinion, G.722 is still a year or more away from getting that initial momentum it needs. But once it gains traction, I would expect it to really take off quickly.

Meanwhile, you can still use G.722 for internal calls between extensions, virtual conference rooms, etc.

That said, if you're having audio quality issues with G.711, then going to G.722 probably won't help much, since it is likely a bandwidth or priority issue on the network.

But if you are getting solid audio with G.711, then moving to G.722 would likely yield impressive results.