Is Sprint planning to upgrade their Network to SVDO?

[S4GRU]

 

It is important to note' date=' however, that EVRC-NW "HD Voice" does not require Network Vision nor CDMA1X Advanced; EVRC-NW is based on the same 9.6 kbps Rate Set 1 as is EVRC. "HD Voice" comes from greater voice data compression, not from higher rate voice data. So, as long as the BSC/MSC has been updated to decode, transcode, or pass EVRC-NW as necessary, then "HD Voice" should be functional even in those markets that Network Vision has not yet reached.

 

AJ[/quote']

 

And those switches are indeed being upgraded as we speak...err, type.

 

Robert via NOVO7PALADIN Tablet using Forum Runner

[Sgt. Slaughter]

It is important to note, however, that EVRC-NW "HD Voice" does not require Network Vision nor CDMA1X Advanced; EVRC-NW is based on the same 9.6 kbps Rate Set 1 as is EVRC. "HD Voice" comes from greater voice data compression, not from higher rate voice data. So, as long as the BSC/MSC has been updated to decode, transcode, or pass EVRC-NW as necessary, then "HD Voice" should be functional even in those markets that Network Vision has not yet reached.

 

AJ

And those switches are indeed being upgraded as we speak...err, type.

 

Robert via NOVO7PALADIN Tablet using Forum Runner

 

k im a lil lost on it now.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5726/sprint-hd-voice-on-htc-evo-4g-lte-is-evrcnw-1x-advanced

 

They talk about it there but dont specifically mention the adaptive bitrate of EVRC-NW...Where did the 9.6kbps come from b/c i couldn't find it when searched around this morning...

 

But I would of thought the bandwidth to sample 16KHz vs the 8KHz sampling currently used would require more bandwidth than the current 8KHz sampling that has adaptive bitrates between 4 and 8kbps, no?

[4ringsnbr]

k im a lil lost on it now.

http://www.anandtech...cnw-1x-advanced

 

They talk about it there but dont specifically mention the adaptive bitrate of EVRC-NW...Where did the 9.6kbps come from b/c i couldn't find it when searched around this morning...

 

But I would of thought the bandwidth to sample 16KHz vs the 8KHz sampling currently used would require more bandwidth than the current 8KHz sampling that has adaptive bitrates between 4 and 8kbps, no?

 

The 9600 bps rate is what is actually sent to the base station when you talk on the phone with 1x. It is the standard rate prior to spreading and encoding. The EVRC vocoders will be transmitted as a 9600 bps data stream to the base station that contains your phone call, error correction bits, and power control bits (from the base station to the phone). The sampling bitrates for EVRC of 8.55 kbps, 4.0 kbps, 0.8 kbps, or 2.0 kbps (for EVRC-B only) are vocoder rates compressing the analog speech signal down to bits for encoding and transmission. Only the older QCELP 13k rates took more than a single 9600 bps data frame to transmit. Basically the past few years (since EVRC has become standardized), all voice data rates use a single 9600 bps data frame for the call. It's the difference between what is encoded as a voice stream and what is actually transmitted (including error checking bits and overhead).

[WiWavelength]

Only the older QCELP 13k rates took more than a single 9600 bps data frame to transmit.

 

Under good signal conditions, 13K QCELP is still the best sounding codec -- in my opinion. It does not utilize a higher sample rate (still 8 kHz), but its higher bit rate does seem to preserve more higher frequency information than does EVRC.

 

That said, for many years now, few CDMA1X networks allow native subs to use 13K because network operators know that their native handsets are all EVRC capable. Roamers, however, generally get the benefit of the doubt, and the network will honor their specified codec preferences. For example, I have adjusted the codec selection on a VZW handset while roaming on Sprint. With each selection -- 8K QCELP, 13K QCELP, EVRC -- the Sprint network honored the codec preference and set up the call with desired Service Option (SO1, SO32768, SO3).

 

AJ

[Turas]

SVLTE is where the future is at. Once we all are on LTE, who cares about simultaneous 3G and voice?

 

Robert

 

Is LTE capable of SVLTE from the start or is that a future upgrade of the network and device?

[S4GRU]

 

Is LTE capable of SVLTE from the start or is that a future upgrade of the network and device?

 

Simultaneous voice capabilities are not a network capability, but rather a device capability. All Sprint LTE devices released to date support SVLTE. And likely every future device will too. Its quite easy to achieve since voice is handled on 1x and LTE is separate.

 

The challenge is offering SVDO on a device. Because 1x and EVDO share antennas in most devices, it takes a redundant CDMA set up to achieve simultaneous 3G data and voice.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[irev210]

Simultaneous voice capabilities are not a network capability, but rather a device capability. All Sprint LTE devices released to date support SVLTE. And likely every future device will too. Its quite easy to achieve since voice is handled on 1x and LTE is separate.

 

The challenge is offering SVDO on a device. Because 1x and EVDO share antennas in most devices, it takes a redundant CDMA set up to achieve simultaneous 3G data and voice.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

 

So with newer phones like the EVO 4G LTE and Samsung GS3, do we get SVDO as a result of MIMO antennas on the PCS band?

[Feech]

Does anyone actually talk on the phone?

[Boosted20V]

Does anyone actually talk on the phone?

 

Haha, I know, this was never a huge draw for me, either. Just antisocial I guess!

[S4GRU]

So with newer phones like the EVO 4G LTE and Samsung GS3, do we get SVDO as a result of MIMO antennas on the PCS band?

 

The additional redundant 1x/EVDO antennas were the largest limiting factor for SVDO. Once they are in place, setting up SVDO is pretty easy for the OEM.

 

Robert