difference of quality: Grandestreem 102 vs Cisco 7912

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

which is the difference in quality for those 2 IP phones?

are the same which each providers or the CIsco could make
the difference?

thanks

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

Martin 53N 1W wrote:
> Ng wrote:
>> which is the difference in quality for those 2 IP phones?
>>
>> are the same which each providers or the CIsco could make
>> the difference?
>
> I have a Grandstream BudgeTone100 and it works fine. 'Telco quality'
> audio even on the low bitrate codecs.
>
> Good features. Only bad point is with the very clunky push buttons.
>
> Note also for the 102 that the LAN connections work at only 10Mbit/s
> (rather than the more usual 100Mbit/s or more). No problem for VoIP
> but painfully slow if you connect your PC through it.

IMHO a better bet than a dedicated phone such as the BudgeTone 100 is the
Grandstream ATA-486 into which you can plug any analogue phone. I use one
in conjunction with a Panasonic DECT phone and the quality is excellent
(using Sipgate) on both inland calls and to friends in the USA.

Ivor

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

"Ng" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:cnads1$eff$1@news.ngi.it...
> which is the difference in quality for those 2 IP phones?
>
> are the same which each providers or the CIsco could make
> the difference?
>
> thanks
>
>
Hi I have a BT101 and a 102 both work fine no issues on sound quality and
also have a Cisco ATA 186 for fax and my dect, Again no issues on sound
quality either. As others have said its a shame about the buttons on the BT.
My older Blue 101 has a nicer feel than the 102. it feels as theplasic has
got thinner.

Ian