David Lang <[email protected]> writes: > Voice is actually remarkably tolerant of pure latency. While 60ms of > jitter makes a connection almost unusalbe, a few hundred ms of > consistant latency isn't a problem. IIRC (from my college days when > ATM was the new, hot technology) you have to get up to around a second > of latency before pure-consistant latency starts to break things.
Well isn't that more a case of "the human brain will compensate for the latency". Sure, you *can* talk to someone with half a second of delay, but it's bloody *annoying*. :P That, for me, is the main reason to go with lower figures. I don't want to just be able to physically talk with someone without the codec breaking, I want to be able to *enjoy* the experience and not be totally exhausted by latency fatigue afterwards. One of the things that really struck a chord with me was hearing the people from the LoLa project (http://www.conservatorio.trieste.it/artistica/ricerca/progetto-lola-low-latency/lola-case-study.pdf) talk about how using their big fancy concert video conferencing system to just talk to each other, it was like having a real face-to-face conversation with none of the annoyances of regular video chat. -Toke _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
