difference of quality: Grandestreem 102 vs Cisco 7912

Discussion in 'VOIP' started by Ng, Nov 15, 2004.

  1. Ng

    Ng Guest

    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
    Ng, Nov 15, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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.


    Good luck,
    Martin

    --
    ---------- OS? What's that?!
    - Martin - To most people, "Operating System" is unknown & strange.
    - 53N 1W - Mandrake 10.0.1 GNU Linux - An OS for Supercomputers & PCs
    ---------- http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en-gb/concept.php3
    Martin 53N 1W, Nov 21, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ng

    Ivor Jones Guest

    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
    Ivor Jones, Nov 21, 2004
    #3
  4. Ng

    BlueRinse Guest

    The Grandstream BT102 works just fine, but it has a numeric only display
    so callerid will not show names.

    I don't mind the buttons, personally, but they are large. I think the main
    issue is price vs quality. For this the BT series is very good IMO.
    BlueRinse, Nov 22, 2004
    #4
  5. Ng

    Ian Guest

    "Ng" <> wrote in message news:cnads1$eff$...
    > 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
    Ian, Nov 22, 2004
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. RM
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,685
  2. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    14,181
    IP Endpoints
    Feb 18, 2009
  3. Clarence Donath

    Cisco IP Phone 7912 and Custom Ring Sounds

    Clarence Donath, Jan 20, 2006, in forum: VOIP
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    3,128
    Clarence Donath
    Jan 20, 2006
  4. Scott Hanson

    Cisco 7912 IP Phone PoE woes

    Scott Hanson, Aug 9, 2006, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    8,123
    www.BradReese.Com
    Aug 10, 2006
  5. m2048
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,427
    m2048
    Oct 10, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page