Verizon wireless - Why does Sprint sound better than Verizon?

Author

Why does Sprint sound better than Verizon?

Mij Adyaw

2006-07-29, 4:33 am

I have had both Sprint and Verizon on a number of phones and the audio
quality on Sprint definitely sounds better. I have other friends that have
switched from Verizon to Sprint and can also substantiate this. Why does
Sprint sound better? Verizon sounds kind of "tinny" compared to Sprint.
Sprint is so good that you can hear a fly fart. They are both CDMA. Does
Sprint use a different type of voice encoding? Does Verizon have any plans
to improve their audio quality to equal that of Sprint?

mij

doogie

2006-07-29, 12:33 pm

Suprise you even know any one that has sprint. Everyone I ever knew
that had Sprint left as soon as they could. As far as audio they could
never get connection to see if that was true. Had do stand in the
street just to get 1 bar.

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 23:37:28 -0700, "Mij Adyaw" <mij@TheBitBucket.com>
wrote:

>I have had both Sprint and Verizon on a number of phones and the audio
>quality on Sprint definitely sounds better. I have other friends that have
>switched from Verizon to Sprint and can also substantiate this. Why does
>Sprint sound better? Verizon sounds kind of "tinny" compared to Sprint.
>Sprint is so good that you can hear a fly fart. They are both CDMA. Does
>Sprint use a different type of voice encoding? Does Verizon have any plans
>to improve their audio quality to equal that of Sprint?
>
>mij
>

Isaiah Beard

2006-07-29, 3:33 pm

Mij Adyaw wrote:
> I have had both Sprint and Verizon on a number of phones and the audio
> quality on Sprint definitely sounds better. I have other friends that have
> switched from Verizon to Sprint and can also substantiate this. Why does
> Sprint sound better? Verizon sounds kind of "tinny" compared to Sprint.

Either a. you're imagining things, and your conviction is convincing
your friends the imagine the same, or b. there are probably more people
using the Verizon network, causing a slight degradation in voice quality
due to heavy call loading.

And let's not forget, people have different preferences for sound, and
it's rare for two people to hear the same sound in exactly the same way.
If everyone heard sound in an identical manner, then high end stereos
wouldn't need to come with equalizers.

> Sprint is so good that you can hear a fly fart.

Unlikely. CDMA is geared to encode and transmit sound that takes on the
characteristics of human speech. Most everything else, including fly
farts, would be mostly filtered out.

> They are both CDMA. Does
> Sprint use a different type of voice encoding?

Both carriers use EVRC.

> Does Verizon have any plans
> to improve their audio quality to equal that of Sprint?

Do you have any plans to stop making such wildly speculative
observations and asking these ridiculous questions? :)

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

DonR.

2006-07-29, 3:33 pm

Probably more related to the phone you were using on each network and your
personal preferences, rather than the network itself. In many areas, both
are on 1900 Mhz, and in most areas Verizon is on 800Mhz. I know some may
disagree, but I believe the 800 Mhz signal is a much richer sounding signal.
I live in a 1900 Mhz area, and when I go to an 800 Mhz area, I really like
the sound difference even with the same phone. All native Sprint coverage is
1900 Mhz with much worse building penetration. Again, some engineers
disagree with that statement, but that has been my experience for many
years.

"Mij Adyaw" <mij@TheBitBucket.com> wrote in message
news:ImDyg.17182$Nv.12393@fed1read10...
>I have had both Sprint and Verizon on a number of phones and the audio
>quality on Sprint definitely sounds better. I have other friends that have
>switched from Verizon to Sprint and can also substantiate this. Why does
>Sprint sound better? Verizon sounds kind of "tinny" compared to Sprint.
>Sprint is so good that you can hear a fly fart. They are both CDMA. Does
>Sprint use a different type of voice encoding? Does Verizon have any plans
>to improve their audio quality to equal that of Sprint?
>
> mij
>

Beavis

2006-07-29, 3:33 pm

In article <dFNyg.1643$0e5.609@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"DonR." < drennardnospam@earth
link.net> wrote:

> I know some may
> disagree, but I believe the 800 Mhz signal is a much richer sounding signal.

As it's a digital signal, that's not possible. The "richness" of the
sound is a function of the voice CODEC being used, and the bit rate.
The carrier frequency makes no difference at all.

Steve Sobol

2006-07-29, 10:33 pm

doogie wrote:
> Suprise you even know any one that has sprint. Everyone I ever knew
> that had Sprint left as soon as they could. As far as audio they could
> never get connection to see if that was true. Had do stand in the
> street just to get 1 bar.

Cue my semi-regular "every carrier is different" spiel.

Sprint covered the lakefront out east of town back when I lived in Northeast
Ohio. Verizon did not, for a long time. Nor did AT&T or Alltel. Out here in
the northeast corner of Apple Valley, Sprint has a tower, but we're just
outside Verizon coverage.

As for the tinny-ness, I never heard it from Verizon when I had a digital
signal. Perhaps it was AMPS that was tinny?

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Apple Valley, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

DonR.

2006-07-29, 10:33 pm

I know you say that, but I also know what I consistently hear. And I am a
musician for over 40 years, and I have a good ear.
I travel regularly between a 1900 area and an 800 area.

"Beavis" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:nobody-F0ED16.16100229072006@news-server.nycap.rr.com...
> In article <dFNyg.1643$0e5.609@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "DonR." < drennardnospam@earth
link.net> wrote:
>
>
> As it's a digital signal, that's not possible. The "richness" of the
> sound is a function of the voice CODEC being used, and the bit rate.
> The carrier frequency makes no difference at all.

Mij Adyaw

2006-07-30, 4:33 am

I think the Beavis is write about that one.

Shutup Buttmunch!!

"Beavis" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:nobody-F0ED16.16100229072006@news-server.nycap.rr.com...
> In article <dFNyg.1643$0e5.609@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "DonR." < drennardnospam@earth
link.net> wrote:
>
>
> As it's a digital signal, that's not possible. The "richness" of the
> sound is a function of the voice CODEC being used, and the bit rate.
> The carrier frequency makes no difference at all.

Der.MEROVINGIAN

2006-07-30, 7:33 am

On 2006-07-29 21:42:55 -0400, "DonR." < drennardnospam@earth
link.net> said:
[color=darkred]
> I know you say that, but I also know what I consistently hear. And I am
> a musician for over 40 years, and I have a good ear.
> I travel regularly between a 1900 area and an 800 area.
>
> "Beavis" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:nobody-F0ED16.16100229072006@news-server.nycap.rr.com...

"And I am a musician for over 40 years, and i have a good ear."

All the more reason for your hearing to be suspect, don't you think...irony.

Mij Adyaw

2006-07-30, 12:33 pm

Yup, most musicians that I know can't hear.

"Der.MEROVINGIAN" <Der.MERO@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:200607300801071
6807-DerMERO@nospamcom...
> On 2006-07-29 21:42:55 -0400, "DonR." < drennardnospam@earth
link.net> said:
>
>
> "And I am a musician for over 40 years, and i have a good ear."
>
> All the more reason for your hearing to be suspect, don't you
> think...irony.
>

Steevo@my-deja.com

2006-07-31, 12:33 pm

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 18:19:53 GMT, "DonR."
< drennardnospam@earth
link.net> wrote:

>are on 1900 Mhz, and in most areas Verizon is on 800Mhz.
That might well be the difference.

At 1900 the sampling rate could be higher, resulting in less aliasing
caused by the nyquist limit.

It doesn't have to be higher, and they would be able to adjust it
lower resulting in more data loss and a more distorted sound quality
if necessary to keep the network working. It's just standards the
carrier can apply, lower standards for sound quality=more calls
carried on the available bandwidth. Higher standards, better sound
quality.

Yee haa.

Jim Seymour

2006-07-31, 3:33 pm

In article <z8Uyg.6310$bP5.4584@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"DonR." < drennardnospam@earth
link.net> writes:
> I know you say that, but I also know what I consistently hear.
[snip]

Sorry, it ain't happenin'. As Beavis wrote: Digital is digital.
There are 1's and there are 0's. There is no in-between. There are
no subtleties or nuances. It matters not a whit what frequency band
the digital signal's on.

And no: A high-end replacement power cord will not improve the
transparency of the highs. Not on your cell phone and not on your
sound system.

--
Jim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not
jseymour@LinxNet.com | go to avoid the labor of thinking."
http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison

Scott

2006-07-31, 10:33 pm

"Jim Seymour" <jseymour@LinxNet.com> wrote in message
news:12csnvdp43ned7a
@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <z8Uyg.6310$bP5.4584@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "DonR." < drennardnospam@earth
link.net> writes:
> [snip]
>
> Sorry, it ain't happenin'. As Beavis wrote: Digital is digital.
> There are 1's and there are 0's. There is no in-between. There are
> no subtleties or nuances. It matters not a whit what frequency band
> the digital signal's on.

But how the sound is converted to 1's and 0's will impact how it sounds on
the other end. Sampling rate could be higher, microphone could be more
sensitive or having a wider frequency sensitivity, error correction is
better or not as necessary at all due to smaller data loss, data compression
rates could be different. All of the above can noticeably affect the
quality of a sound file.

Not all digital sound files are created equal. Don't believe it? Rip a
song of your choice into an .mp3 at a sampling rate of 48kbps, rip the same
song at 256kbps and then compare the sound quality between the two. Those
that can't hear the noticeable difference are the ones with hearing
problems.

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2006-08-01, 10:33 am

In alt.cellular.verizon Mij Adyaw <mij@thebitbucket.com> wrote:
> I have had both Sprint and Verizon on a number of phones and the audio
> quality on Sprint definitely sounds better. I have other friends that have
> switched from Verizon to Sprint and can also substantiate this. Why does
> Sprint sound better? Verizon sounds kind of "tinny" compared to Sprint.
> Sprint is so good that you can hear a fly fart. They are both CDMA. Does
> Sprint use a different type of voice encoding? Does Verizon have any plans
> to improve their audio quality to equal that of Sprint?
>

I picked up my Sister's VX8300 and it sounds just as good as my Sanyo 7400,
which sounds as good as any Sprint PCS phone that I have had. What phone are
you complaining about with Verizon?

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2006-08-01, 10:33 am

doogie <no@no.com> wrote:
> Suprise you even know any one that has sprint. Everyone I ever knew
> that had Sprint left as soon as they could. As far as audio they could
> never get connection to see if that was true. Had do stand in the
> street just to get 1 bar.
>

Yeah right ... suck up and eat your vendetta.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2006-08-01, 10:33 am

In alt.cellular.verizon Mij Adyaw <mij@thebitbucket.com> wrote:
> Yup, most musicians that I know can't hear.
>

Most that I know can't hear either. I must say ... lucky for them ;-)

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Beavis

2006-08-04, 10:33 am

In article < gM2dnfzCTvCXPFPZnZ2d
nUVZ_t6dnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:

[color=darkred]
>
> But how the sound is converted to 1's and 0's will impact how it sounds on
> the other end. Sampling rate could be higher, microphone could be more
> sensitive or having a wider frequency sensitivity, error correction is
> better or not as necessary at all due to smaller data loss, data compression
> rates could be different. All of the above can noticeably affect the
> quality of a sound file.

All of that is absolutely right. But none of that has anything to do
with the carrier frequency of the signal being encoded and decoded.
It's still a stream of ones and zeroes.

> Not all digital sound files are created equal. Don't believe it? Rip a
> song of your choice into an .mp3 at a sampling rate of 48kbps, rip the same
> song at 256kbps and then compare the sound quality between the two.

Here's a more relevant example:

Take that 256kb file, and e-mail it to a friend twice -- once using a
cable modem, and once using Verizon's spiffy new FIOS internet.

Which one's going to sound better?

If you answered, "They'll both sound the same, because they're encoded
at the same bit rate," you'd be right. The situation is the same with
1900MHz vs. 850MHz carriers, both carrying the same stream of ones and
zeroes.

John Richards

2006-08-04, 3:33 pm

"Beavis" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:nobody-65DBC5.10453504082006@news-server.nycap.rr.com...
>
> Take that 256kb file, and e-mail it to a friend twice -- once using a
> cable modem, and once using Verizon's spiffy new FIOS internet.
>
> Which one's going to sound better?
>
> If you answered, "They'll both sound the same, because they're encoded
> at the same bit rate," you'd be right. The situation is the same with
> 1900MHz vs. 850MHz carriers, both carrying the same stream of ones and
> zeroes.

You are taking for granted that the 850MHz signal uses the exact same
encoding/decoding algorithm as the 1900MHz signal. Although that is
likely to be the case, it isn't necessarily so.

--
John Richards

The Other Funk

2006-08-04, 10:33 pm

Finding the keyboard operational
John Richards entered:

> "Beavis" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:nobody-65DBC5.10453504082006@news-server.nycap.rr.com...
>
> You are taking for granted that the 850MHz signal uses the exact same
> encoding/decoding algorithm as the 1900MHz signal. Although that is
> likely to be the case, it isn't necessarily so.
Just a note. Your 850 and 1900 may have completly different variable rate
vocoders. Depends on a few things. When the last upgrade was done. Exactly
what the error rate is at that point in time. How loud the voice is. How far
away you are. What language the vocoder is tuned for. Yep there are
different algorithims for different languages.
Plus, once your signal gets on the SS7, all bets are off.
Bob

--
--
Coffee worth staying up for – NY Times
www.moondoggiecoffee.com

Scott

2006-08-04, 10:33 pm

"Beavis" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:nobody-65DBC5.10453504082006@news-server.nycap.rr.com...
> In article < gM2dnfzCTvCXPFPZnZ2d
nUVZ_t6dnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
>
> All of that is absolutely right. But none of that has anything to do
> with the carrier frequency of the signal being encoded and decoded.
> It's still a stream of ones and zeroes.

But the question is- are you sure that the stream of ones and zeroes are
created the same and identical after decoding?

>
>
> Here's a more relevant example:
>
> Take that 256kb file, and e-mail it to a friend twice -- once using a
> cable modem, and once using Verizon's spiffy new FIOS internet.
>
> Which one's going to sound better?
>
> If you answered, "They'll both sound the same, because they're encoded
> at the same bit rate," you'd be right. The situation is the same with
> 1900MHz vs. 850MHz carriers, both carrying the same stream of ones and
> zeroes.

Again- you are assuming that the data stream is going to be identical. If
even one piece of equipment in the chain shows higher tolerances than that
of the other carrier, or if data correction is tighter on one of the
networks, the file used to convert back to analog won't be the same for both
carriers. Nextel recently starting converting their network from a 3:1 to a
6:1 vocoder. The effects on sound quality are quite evident- tone is
sometimes impacted to the point where the caller sounds like they have been
drinking.

Your assumption that the coding and decoding of the signal are identical
with regard to data integrity is not necessarily correct and more likely
inaccurate.

colin.yapp@gmail.com

2006-08-28, 7:33 am

I think that your reply was unduly harsh considering that the
individual that wrote the original post may have other factors that are
affecting his outcome. I, too, agree that Sprint service does sound
better but I do not know what to attribute it to. It is much clearer
compared to friends to family that have Verizon LG, Motorola and
Samsung phones. I have a Sanyo 8300.

Isaiah Beard wrote:
> Mij Adyaw wrote:
>
> Either a. you're imagining things, and your conviction is convincing
> your friends the imagine the same, or b. there are probably more people
> using the Verizon network, causing a slight degradation in voice quality
> due to heavy call loading.
>
> And let's not forget, people have different preferences for sound, and
> it's rare for two people to hear the same sound in exactly the same way.
> If everyone heard sound in an identical manner, then high end stereos
> wouldn't need to come with equalizers.
>
>
> Unlikely. CDMA is geared to encode and transmit sound that takes on the
> characteristics of human speech. Most everything else, including fly
> farts, would be mostly filtered out.
>
>
> Both carriers use EVRC.
>
>
> Do you have any plans to stop making such wildly speculative
> observations and asking these ridiculous questions? :)
>
>
> --
> E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
> Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

Mij Adyaw

2006-08-28, 12:33 pm

Thanks for the reply. I have since done some more testing to further
substantiate my claim that Sprint sounds better than Verizon.

<colin.yapp@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156765483.429832.135760@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I think that your reply was unduly harsh considering that the
> individual that wrote the original post may have other factors that are
> affecting his outcome. I, too, agree that Sprint service does sound
> better but I do not know what to attribute it to. It is much clearer
> compared to friends to family that have Verizon LG, Motorola and
> Samsung phones. I have a Sanyo 8300.
>
> Isaiah Beard wrote:
>

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2006-08-28, 12:33 pm

In alt.cellular.verizon Mij Adyaw <mij@thebitbucket.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. I have since done some more testing to further
> substantiate my claim that Sprint sounds better than Verizon.
>

I have used Sprint PCS for most of the last 4 years. I switched to Verizon
just a few weeks back using a LG VX8300 and I can say the sound quality is
just as good as it was with Sprint, no better and no worse. I fail to see any
substance to your claim based upon experience or any technological merit.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

EOO

2006-08-28, 3:33 pm

"Mij Adyaw" <mij@TheBitBucket.com> wrote in message
news:peFIg.1998$AP2.618@fed1read10...
> Thanks for the reply. I have since done some more testing to further
> substantiate my claim that Sprint sounds better than Verizon.

How can you test be valid if you have to use different phones for each
service?

LinkBot