 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Sprint PCS / August 2006Why does Sprint sound better than Verizon?
I have had both Sprint and Verizon on a number of phones and the audio quality on Sprint definitely sounds better. I have other friends that have switched from Verizon to Sprint and can also substantiate this. Why does Sprint sound better? Verizon sounds kind of "tinny" compared to Sprint. Sprint is so good that you can hear a fly fart. They are both CDMA. Does Sprint use a different type of voice encoding? Does Verizon have any plans to improve their audio quality to equal that of Sprint? mij > I have had both Sprint and Verizon on a number of phones and the audio > quality on Sprint definitely sounds better. I have other friends that have > switched from Verizon to Sprint and can also substantiate this. Why does > Sprint sound better? Verizon sounds kind of "tinny" compared to Sprint. Either a. you're imagining things, and your conviction is convincing your friends the imagine the same, or b. there are probably more people using the Verizon network, causing a slight degradation in voice quality due to heavy call loading. And let's not forget, people have different preferences for sound, and it's rare for two people to hear the same sound in exactly the same way. If everyone heard sound in an identical manner, then high end stereos wouldn't need to come with equalizers. > Sprint is so good that you can hear a fly fart. Unlikely. CDMA is geared to encode and transmit sound that takes on the characteristics of human speech. Most everything else, including fly farts, would be mostly filtered out. > They are both CDMA. Does > Sprint use a different type of voice encoding? Both carriers use EVRC. > Does Verizon have any plans > to improve their audio quality to equal that of Sprint? Do you have any plans to stop making such wildly speculative observations and asking these ridiculous questions? :)  SignatureE-mail fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. I think that your reply was unduly harsh considering that the individual that wrote the original post may have other factors that are affecting his outcome. I, too, agree that Sprint service does sound better but I do not know what to attribute it to. It is much clearer compared to friends to family that have Verizon LG, Motorola and Samsung phones. I have a Sanyo 8300. > > I have had both Sprint and Verizon on a number of phones and the audio > > quality on Sprint definitely sounds better. I have other friends that have [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > E-mail fudged to thwart spammers. > Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. Thanks for the reply. I have since done some more testing to further substantiate my claim that Sprint sounds better than Verizon. >I think that your reply was unduly harsh considering that the > individual that wrote the original post may have other factors that are [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >> E-mail fudged to thwart spammers. >> Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. In alt.cellular.verizon Mij Adyaw <mij@thebitbucket.com> wrote: > Thanks for the reply. I have since done some more testing to further > substantiate my claim that Sprint sounds better than Verizon. I have used Sprint PCS for most of the last 4 years. I switched to Verizon just a few weeks back using a LG VX8300 and I can say the sound quality is just as good as it was with Sprint, no better and no worse. I fail to see any substance to your claim based upon experience or any technological merit. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > Thanks for the reply. I have since done some more testing to further > substantiate my claim that Sprint sounds better than Verizon. How can you test be valid if you have to use different phones for each service? Probably more related to the phone you were using on each network and your personal preferences, rather than the network itself. In many areas, both are on 1900 Mhz, and in most areas Verizon is on 800Mhz. I know some may disagree, but I believe the 800 Mhz signal is a much richer sounding signal. I live in a 1900 Mhz area, and when I go to an 800 Mhz area, I really like the sound difference even with the same phone. All native Sprint coverage is 1900 Mhz with much worse building penetration. Again, some engineers disagree with that statement, but that has been my experience for many years. >I have had both Sprint and Verizon on a number of phones and the audio >quality on Sprint definitely sounds better. I have other friends that have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > mij > I know some may > disagree, but I believe the 800 Mhz signal is a much richer sounding signal. As it's a digital signal, that's not possible. The "richness" of the sound is a function of the voice CODEC being used, and the bit rate. The carrier frequency makes no difference at all. I know you say that, but I also know what I consistently hear. And I am a musician for over 40 years, and I have a good ear. I travel regularly between a 1900 area and an 800 area. >> I know some may >> disagree, but I believe the 800 Mhz signal is a much richer sounding [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sound is a function of the voice CODEC being used, and the bit rate. > The carrier frequency makes no difference at all. > I know you say that, but I also know what I consistently hear. And I am > a musician for over 40 years, and I have a good ear. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> sound is a function of the voice CODEC being used, and the bit rate. >> The carrier frequency makes no difference at all. "And I am a musician for over 40 years, and i have a good ear." All the more reason for your hearing to be suspect, don't you think...irony. Yup, most musicians that I know can't hear. >> I know you say that, but I also know what I consistently hear. And I am a >> musician for over 40 years, and I have a good ear. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > All the more reason for your hearing to be suspect, don't you > think...irony. In alt.cellular.verizon Mij Adyaw <mij@thebitbucket.com> wrote: > Yup, most musicians that I know can't hear. Most that I know can't hear either. I must say ... lucky for them ;-) SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > I know you say that, but I also know what I consistently hear. [snip] Sorry, it ain't happenin'. As Beavis wrote: Digital is digital. There are 1's and there are 0's. There is no in-between. There are no subtleties or nuances. It matters not a whit what frequency band the digital signal's on. And no: A high-end replacement power cord will not improve the transparency of the highs. Not on your cell phone and not on your sound system. SignatureJim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not jseymour@LinxNet.com | go to avoid the labor of thinking." http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison >> I know you say that, but I also know what I consistently hear. > [snip] [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > no subtleties or nuances. It matters not a whit what frequency band > the digital signal's on. But how the sound is converted to 1's and 0's will impact how it sounds on the other end. Sampling rate could be higher, microphone could be more sensitive or having a wider frequency sensitivity, error correction is better or not as necessary at all due to smaller data loss, data compression rates could be different. All of the above can noticeably affect the quality of a sound file. Not all digital sound files are created equal. Don't believe it? Rip a song of your choice into an .mp3 at a sampling rate of 48kbps, rip the same song at 256kbps and then compare the sound quality between the two. Those that can't hear the noticeable difference are the ones with hearing problems. > > Sorry, it ain't happenin'. As Beavis wrote: Digital is digital. > > There are 1's and there are 0's. There is no in-between. > But how the sound is converted to 1's and 0's will impact how it sounds on > the other end. Sampling rate could be higher, microphone could be more > sensitive or having a wider frequency sensitivity, error correction is > better or not as necessary at all due to smaller data loss, data compression > rates could be different. All of the above can noticeably affect the > quality of a sound file. All of that is absolutely right. But none of that has anything to do with the carrier frequency of the signal being encoded and decoded. It's still a stream of ones and zeroes. > Not all digital sound files are created equal. Don't believe it? Rip a > song of your choice into an .mp3 at a sampling rate of 48kbps, rip the same > song at 256kbps and then compare the sound quality between the two. Here's a more relevant example: Take that 256kb file, and e-mail it to a friend twice -- once using a cable modem, and once using Verizon's spiffy new FIOS internet. Which one's going to sound better? If you answered, "They'll both sound the same, because they're encoded at the same bit rate," you'd be right. The situation is the same with 1900MHz vs. 850MHz carriers, both carrying the same stream of ones and zeroes. > Take that 256kb file, and e-mail it to a friend twice -- once using a > cable modem, and once using Verizon's spiffy new FIOS internet. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 1900MHz vs. 850MHz carriers, both carrying the same stream of ones and > zeroes. You are taking for granted that the 850MHz signal uses the exact same encoding/decoding algorithm as the 1900MHz signal. Although that is likely to be the case, it isn't necessarily so. SignatureJohn Richards Finding the keyboard operational John Richards entered: >> Take that 256kb file, and e-mail it to a friend twice -- once using a >> cable modem, and once using Verizon's spiffy new FIOS internet. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > encoding/decoding algorithm as the 1900MHz signal. Although that is > likely to be the case, it isn't necessarily so. Just a note. Your 850 and 1900 may have completly different variable rate vocoders. Depends on a few things. When the last upgrade was done. Exactly what the error rate is at that point in time. How loud the voice is. How far away you are. What language the vocoder is tuned for. Yep there are different algorithims for different languages. Plus, once your signal gets on the SS7, all bets are off. Bob Signature-- Coffee worth staying up for – NY Times www.moondoggiecoffee.com >> > Sorry, it ain't happenin'. As Beavis wrote: Digital is digital. >> > There are 1's and there are 0's. There is no in-between. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > with the carrier frequency of the signal being encoded and decoded. > It's still a stream of ones and zeroes. But the question is- are you sure that the stream of ones and zeroes are created the same and identical after decoding? >> Not all digital sound files are created equal. Don't believe it? Rip a >> song of your choice into an .mp3 at a sampling rate of 48kbps, rip the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 1900MHz vs. 850MHz carriers, both carrying the same stream of ones and > zeroes. Again- you are assuming that the data stream is going to be identical. If even one piece of equipment in the chain shows higher tolerances than that of the other carrier, or if data correction is tighter on one of the networks, the file used to convert back to analog won't be the same for both carriers. Nextel recently starting converting their network from a 3:1 to a 6:1 vocoder. The effects on sound quality are quite evident- tone is sometimes impacted to the point where the caller sounds like they have been drinking. Your assumption that the coding and decoding of the signal are identical with regard to data integrity is not necessarily correct and more likely inaccurate. I think the Beavis is write about that one. Shutup Buttmunch!! >> I know some may >> disagree, but I believe the 800 Mhz signal is a much richer sounding [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sound is a function of the voice CODEC being used, and the bit rate. > The carrier frequency makes no difference at all. >are on 1900 Mhz, and in most areas Verizon is on 800Mhz. That might well be the difference. At 1900 the sampling rate could be higher, resulting in less aliasing caused by the nyquist limit. It doesn't have to be higher, and they would be able to adjust it lower resulting in more data loss and a more distorted sound quality if necessary to keep the network working. It's just standards the carrier can apply, lower standards for sound quality=more calls carried on the available bandwidth. Higher standards, better sound quality. Yee haa. In alt.cellular.verizon Mij Adyaw <mij@thebitbucket.com> wrote: > I have had both Sprint and Verizon on a number of phones and the audio > quality on Sprint definitely sounds better. I have other friends that have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Sprint use a different type of voice encoding? Does Verizon have any plans > to improve their audio quality to equal that of Sprint? I picked up my Sister's VX8300 and it sounds just as good as my Sanyo 7400, which sounds as good as any Sprint PCS phone that I have had. What phone are you complaining about with Verizon? SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.