Re: [hylafax-users] "Best" Fax Modem

[Lee Howard <faxguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2004.08.09 10:24 "Williams,  Jeff" wrote:
> All:
>
> We have pretty much decided that our USR Sportster modems aren't going
> to
> cut it once we start using our HylaFax server to send faxes to our
> customers.  Does anyone have a recommendation about a really good
> modem that
> is going to be able to communicate reliably with 99% of the fax
> machines out
> there?

Well, this...

> (I realize forming an accurate answer probably depends upon all sorts
> of
> parameters I have not stated, like class 1/2/2.0, ECM or non-ECM, etc.
>  If
> anyone wants to suggest a better framing of the general question,
> please
> do.)

... is a very correct statement.  Reliablity depends heavily upon the 
supported featureset, the manufacturer involvement, the chipset, and 
what "Class" is used.  So let me answer your question this way:

(All of my comments are about analog devices.  I'm not commenting about 
digital here.)

HylaFAX in Class 1/1.0 is generally going to support more features than 
the modem's firmware will support in Class 2/2.0/2.1.  In most cases 
HylaFAX's own fax protocol support in Class 1/1.0 is going to be more 
reliable than the modem's firmware support in Class 2/2.0/2.1.  
Currently the only exception to this latter statement of which I know 
is with MultiTech modems, as MultiTech seems to take great efforts to 
keep their own fax code in their current modems working well.  So you 
certainly want to get a modem that at least supports Class 1.  Don't 
get a modem that only supports Class 2.

The only two manufacturers of which I am aware that actively support 
fax development in their modems are MultiTech and MainPine.  So current 
modems made by these manufacturers are usually better supported than 
you will get otherwise.  That said, many "old" modems in Class 1 don't 
really need any support, anyway, because they work perfectly well 
as-is.  Also, to be aware, the DSP chipset manufacturer support also 
plays a part in this equation.  Not counting soft-modems the chipset 
manufacturers of which I have experience are Agere (old Lucent), 
Conexant (old Rockwell), Texas Instruments, 3Com, and Analog Devices.  
To my perspective, Agere seems more repsonsive to the faxmodem market 
than the rest.  However, Conexant has some very robust DSP code 
already, so their code doesn't need much support anyway.  The rest of 
the chipset manufacturers seem ambivalent to the faxmodem market.

As mentioned, the chipsets of which I know are Agere (found on 
MultiTechs, MainPines, and Zooms), Conexant (found on lots old modems 
with Rockwell chips, MultiTech, Comtrol, Best Data, Equinox, etc.), 
Texas Instruments (found on old "USR clones" and old USR modems), 3Com 
(found on new USR modems), Analog Devices (found on Digi modems).  
Agere has some good DSP code and it works well, but arguably it's not 
as good as the Conexant code, but in all fairness to Agere, I think 
that if there is any difference it is negligible, and since Agere code 
supports more faxmodem features (V.34-Fax) than Conexant code does it 
more than compensates for any difference.

I know that may yet be a vague response.  See the link below.

> I did look at the FAQs on hylafax.org, but the modem-specific
> information
> seemed a bit dated (circa 1999).

Updated information about modems is found here:

http://www.hylafax.org/howto/install.html#ss2.1

Lee.

____________________ HylaFAX(tm) Users Mailing List _______________________
 To subscribe/unsubscribe, click http://lists.hylafax.org/cgi-bin/lsg2.cgi
On UNIX: mail -s unsubscribe hylafax-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxx < /dev/null
 *To learn about commercial HylaFAX(tm) support, mail sales@xxxxxxxxx*