The intention of the article was never to promulgate falsehoods about HDVoice, but merely to raise concerns about its current viability. The bottom line is that even if you have an IP phone that is capable or compatible with the technology, there are a large number of instances in which your calls will not in fact be wideband/HD quality. For this reason we feel that it is important consumers weigh the benefits of making the investment now while there are still so many variables to the equation.

I appreciate your further explanation of many of the technical terms of our post. However some of your criticism/consternation is a bit confusing, because despite pointing out what you label as “patently false” or “mealy mouthed wish-wash” you then seem to back-track and concede large parts of the points you’re arguing against. The main thing we wanted to make clear was that HDVoice/Wideband audio is not even remotely close to majority market penetration, and that there are significant changes that need to take place before many necessary elements are implemented on a widescale.

On to the bad information…

“HD transmits from about 50 Hz to 7,000 Hz”

That’s the absolute minimum, worst case that anyone would consider a HDVoice call. Tyical of G.722. Some codecs support audio bandwidth > 20 KHz. Yes, music quality.

“Additionally, since HD voice transmits more frequencies it takes up more bandwidth.”

That’s patently false, or at best misleading. Of the many wideband codecs out there only a few use any more bandwidth than plain old G.711 that we call PSTN “toll quality.” G.722, the oldest and most common wideband codec in hardware uses the exact same 64 kbps before packet overhead. Most use much less, some dramatically less.

Want to know more about the specifics of various wideband codecs? Here’s something I posted a few months ago:

http://www.mgraves.org/voip/2009/05/mythbusting-hd-voice-frequency-response-vs-data-rate/

I see the same disinformation spreading in many circles where people have never actually used wideband voice.

“Also, users may have to invest in HD phones to get their full money’s worth.”

What kind of mealy mouthed wish-wash is that? If you want to experience a wideband call using a desktop phone you will need to buy one. That’s just common sense.

If you find a soft phone on your PC an acceptable alternative you might have to buy one of those. There are also open source & freeware options in that area.

“While HD compatible phones do exist, some argue that they don’t deliver full HD voice quality.”

More drivel. You had a point but failed to make it accurately.

Most wideband capable phones deliver real wideband quality calls. A few of the very cheapest might support a wideband codec for marketing purposes. It looks good on a tech sheet. But those same very cheap phones may not have the physical hardware quality to deliver a great sounding call.

The old Grandstream BudgeTone 200 is the classic example of this. While it supports G.722 you only hear an HD call on this phone using a headset. This is a simple case of getting exactly what you pay for.

“Even then HD to HD calls will be worthless if they have to travel over a traditional land line.”

Ahem, if the call path is via the PSTN then by definition it’s NOT an HDVoice call. HD calls require a pure IP media path. IP end-to-end. That usually means dialing by SIP URI.

In my case that means I have the pleasure of wideband calls between my associates desks. Also calls between offices routed via our WAN. Also calls home from a soft phone on my laptop to the Gigaset phones at my home.

We especially appreciate conference calls where its just simply easier to understand what’s being said.

Heck, my dogs even recognize my voice over a wideband call to a cheap little ClearOne Chat 50 speakerphone plugged into my wife’s PC.

I applaud your effort to be informative with this site. To be credible you need to do your homework about topics like HDVoice. If you’re not speaking from personal experience using HD they you’re not well positioned to comment.

This post has very little useful information except to express your personal lack of enthusiasm about HDVoice.

If HD voice picks up momentum, I foresee most ITSPs with their own networks enabling G.722 for their SIP Trunks. The issue right now is that it doesn’t provide value to the majority of the customer base who are not equipped to handle HD voice.

Also, the incentives for upgrading a SIP phone to an HD voice-enabled SIP phone are minimal at this point, especially given the economic climate. It’s more realistic for companies who are considering moving from analog to SIP to think about going straight to HD voice.