On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 07:59:16PM -0800, Alexander Chemeris wrote:
The reason why people use TCH/F is because it offers
higher quality than TCH/H.
E.g. if you're using AMR, you can go only up to 7.95 mode in TCH/H
(see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Multi-Rate_audio_codec).
So just saying that TCH/H is "more efficient" is not correct. It's
more efficient in exchange to some loss in quality.
IMHO twice the number of timeslots qualifies for saying "more efficiently
using the available timeslots" :)
But thanks for this clarification. My impression so far was that AMR on
TCH/H has fair enough quality that the voice call experience isn't
noticeably different to TCH/F and "everyone is using it anyways"...?
Also how do "people use" TCH/F? Is it a choice the MS user is able to
make? Or is this always a choice on the CN side?
~N
--
- Neels Hofmeyr <nhofmeyr(a)sysmocom.de>
http://www.sysmocom.de/
=======================================================================
* sysmocom - systems for mobile communications GmbH
* Alt-Moabit 93
* 10559 Berlin, Germany
* Sitz / Registered office: Berlin, HRB 134158 B
* Geschäftsführer / Managing Directors: Harald Welte