Back to Article

  • fic2 - Wednesday, April 04, 2012 - link

    So, does this only do good for the person that I call with an HTC EVO 4G LTE? Seems like it wouldn't effect what I am able to hear. (As always I might be wrong.) Reply
  • Solidstate89 - Wednesday, April 04, 2012 - link

    Unless they're using an "HD voice" compatible handset it does neither you or the person you're calling any good. Reply
  • apinkel - Wednesday, April 04, 2012 - link

    The phone calling from and calling too both need to support it and the network in between must have been upgraded as well.

    I don't expect it to be something that's going to come into play for the avg user for quite a while but I like that sprint is moving in that direction and that their flagship phone supports it.
  • fic2 - Thursday, April 05, 2012 - link

    Thanks for the info.
    I would agree that it is good that Sprint is moving in that direction.
  • Solidstate89 - Wednesday, April 04, 2012 - link

    I must say, even though it's only compatible with the CDMA upgrade, the fact they're planning on rolling out this "HD Voice" feature over their 3G network is pretty nice. Verizon (and I assume AT&T) is trying to do the same thing but their implementation will ONLY be possible by using VoLTE. That this phone (and I'm assuming any future handsets to come on Sprint) will be able to use this HD voice over not only their upcoming LTE network, but also their CDMA network is pretty impressive. Reply
  • mcnabney - Thursday, April 05, 2012 - link

    Yup, all I heard from this article is that Sprint isn't planning on moving to VoLTE anytime soon, which is really really bad. That means Sprint is commited to selling more of their infrastructure to raise funds and also not really interested in expanding LTE to cover their entire footprint like Verizon claims they will do by the end of next year. All this really means is that Sprint is choosing to make-do with old technology and provide the minimum service required. Fine, if you never leaves your suburban community, not so good if you ever go anywhere. Reply
  • apinkel - Thursday, April 05, 2012 - link

    Sprint is moving CMDA into the 800 mhz spectrum as part of their network vision upgrades. That spectrum has better long distance propagation then the 1900mhz frequencies they are using for LTE so putting voice (the highest priority, lowest bandwidth) in CDMA makes a lot of sense for them.

    My understanding is that they don't have enough contiguous spectrum to deploy LTE at 800mhz.

    For most markets they should have good LTE coverage... similar to what their current cdma coverage at 1900mhz gives you today for voice.

    They do have areas where their spectrum holdings aren't as good... mostly in the southeast US... coverage may be more spotty in those areas.
  • xcharles718 - Friday, April 06, 2012 - link

    Currently, Sprint is in the process of ending iDEN services(which is on the 800MHz ESMR spectrum). Sprint plans to slowly thin out iDEN coverage and shut everything down in 2013. With the dropping iDEN subscribers over the years, some spectrum on 800MHz is opened up. It's not enough to deploy a 5x5 LTE setup(which they plan to do after iDEN is fully shutdown), but enough for 1 or 2 1x Advanced channels. This CDMA service would offer voice and 2G data. Both 1xA and LTE will co-exist on the 800MHz band after Network Vision is complete. Reply
  • apinkel - Friday, April 06, 2012 - link

    Yup. Moving LTE into 800mhz requires advancements in LTE technology that aren't available today.

    One other thing to add... their initial LTE deployment will be in the 10 mhz (5x5) PCS G-Block. They have pretty much national coverage for this spectrum so their LTE coverage should be pretty extensive.
  • Penti - Saturday, April 07, 2012 - link

    Sweden and much of the rest of the world uses and supports LTE at 800MHz spectrum, the only real drawback is that there won't be any triple or quad-band LTE chipsets for terminals for many many years. The other is that we are waiting here for VoLTE and convergence with other technologies. For seamless and modern usage obviously. In Sweden they could employ pretty extensive service for 3G on 900-band for example. They really need to move to all IP-backbones and VOIP with VoLTE at the core in the background. Of course that in extension would make it possible to build even more extensive and flexible telephony services, you can also do voice over wifi and offer more extensive voip-services. Obviously upgrading infrastructure and services is a must, even if not all is here yet commercially. You can really on CDMA, GSM and 3G for voice for some more years, but using multiple radios instead of handover is a drawback. Doubling the sizes of batteries only goes so far.

    Deploying LTE on world mass consumer products is a bit of a hassle, there is no (significant at least) deployment of VoLTE and most basebands for the terminals are totally worthless and means a two physical baseband chips setup. They won't support whats deployed world wide, enough bands/frequencies as happened with the new iPad which don't offer any LTE service in most of the world. Baseband offers needs to mature, networks are really only fine for data use. Even when more power efficient and integrated baseband in terminals has reached the market it still won't be quad/triple band and would have to be configured for different frequencies/markets. No "world phones" for LTE just yet.

    UMTS operators has AMR-WB instead as the article points out. They aren't missing any.
  • Wolfpup - Thursday, April 05, 2012 - link

    For YEARS now I've been annoyed that while they keep piling on new features, cell phone voice quality remains atrocious. I used to think land lines sounded horrible...but now by comparison they're almost like you're standing next to someone.

    So cool that someone's doing this, and it would be cool if it ends up a competitive advantage for Sprint (hey, remember the "pin drop" commercials?)

    Current call quality is so terrible that doubling the bit rate would be a massive upgrade.
  • dubyadubya - Thursday, April 05, 2012 - link

    Not sure where you live but LL quality has been the voice quality bench mark forever. I would guess you or the people you talk to have crap phones. Most phones are crap these days. About a year ago needed a new home phone system. I ended up buying and returning 3 sets before finding something I could live with. The best sounding phones ever made were old Bell phones and they were tough as nails. Reply
  • A5 - Thursday, April 05, 2012 - link

    LL service isn't exactly high quality either, it is just more consistent. 8-bit, 8 Khz sampling isn't really ever going to sound good. Reply
  • jhlundin - Thursday, April 05, 2012 - link

    I completely agree with the poor quality of cellular audio... I upgraded my VoIP from the G.729 codec to the G.711 codec which is the standard for PSTN and updated my wireless around my home and office to the 1.9ghz DECT... and that made a real difference for *all* my calls... Why can't everybody just add the G.722 codec to move their cellphone into the bottom end of the "wideband" arena and improve the quality (I notice that there are a number of Android VoIP apps that support G.722 for under $10)...? Reply
  • philpoe - Thursday, April 05, 2012 - link

    It looks like from the article that phones with 2 mics that can do common mode voice rejection, when paired up with a CDMA 1x-Advanced network, and EVRC-NW codec will be capable of HD voice. That sounds like a software update, and hopefully from Sprint instead of the handset manufacturer.

    Does that boil down to Sprint-to-Sprint calls on advanced smartphones get HD Voice?
  • NoelRoscoe1 - Thursday, April 05, 2012 - link

    Verizon (and I assume AT&T) is trying to do the same thing but their implementation will ONLY be possible by using VoLTE. That this phone (and I'm assuming any future handsets to come on Sprint) will be able to use this HD voice over not only their upcoming LTE network Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now