If you like the way cellphones sound, you'll love G.729. I'll leave it
at that.
On 03/11/2016 06:50 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
As far as I can tell, G.729 is still the best intersection of low bandwidth
and call quality, although the OPUS fans have their own opinion. It certainly
leads to intelligible speech, though it can make for some amusing gibberish
when applied to hold music, given the extreme code word contractions it uses to
achieve its vicious compression ratio.
However, it's relatively CPU intensive and frequently requires transcoding from
G.711 PSTN table stakes. Moreover, in general things are going in the other
direction, e.g. higher bandwidth HD codecs.
This leads me to ask: why, as a North American operator, would you want to do
this today, in light of the capacity and price of available bandwidth today?
Generally speaking, G.729 is something like a niche interest for international
haulers and folk operating in developing world markets where bandwidth remains
stubbornly expensive.
--
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
1447 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 700
Atlanta, GA 30309
United States
Tel: +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) / +1-678-954-0671 (direct)
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
Sent from my BlackBerry.
Original Message
From: Robert Johnson
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 18:56
To: [email protected]
Subject: [VoiceOps] G.729 A/B Experiences
Hey everyone,
I'm looking to deploy a lower-bandwidth codec, and am wondering what
everyone's experience has been with G.729, primary regarding voice
quality. Historically, we have limited our codec use to G.711.
Some test calls in the lab are showing promising results, I'm just
curious what might happen in the real-world.
Thank you for your time!!
_______________________________________________
VoiceOps mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
