On Tue, 28 Apr 2015, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
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
we aren't disagreeing here. "a few hundred ms of consistant latency" is starts
to top out around the half second range.
But if we are labeling something "VoIP breaks here", then it needs to be broken,
not just annoying to some peopel.
David Lang
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
