This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.
A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/OpenBSC@lists.osmocom.org/.
Neels Hofmeyr nhofmeyr at sysmocom.deOn 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 at 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/openbsc/attachments/20161115/cd340a59/attachment.bin>