Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:
On January 19, 2005 12:23 pm, Paul Fielding wrote:
I think you might want to clarify that Best audio quality is in relation to
other highly compressed codecs. Certainly my (albeit limited) experience
is that g711 is much more clear than g729. Compared against gsm, for
Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:
On January 19, 2005 12:23 pm, Paul Fielding wrote:
I think you might want to clarify that Best audio quality is in relation to
other highly compressed codecs. Certainly my (albeit limited) experience
is that g711 is much more clear than g729. Compared
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
For a small installation using ITSPs via DSL is G.729 a
worthwhile exercise? I have G.729 capable SIP phones and my
ITSPs cupport the codec so I could go end-to-end without
transcoding. What's call quality like compared to G.711, GSM or iLBC?
Low bandwidth
Low bandwidth
Low CPU utilization
Best audio quality
I think you might want to clarify that Best audio quality is in relation to
other highly compressed codecs. Certainly my (albeit limited) experience is
that g711 is much more clear than g729. Compared against gsm, for example,
however, the
There's a MOS scale for this kind of stuff
-Original Message-
From: Paul Fielding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 11:24 AM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] G.729? Worth it?
Low bandwidth
Low CPU
-Users] G.729? Worth it?
There's a MOS scale for this kind of stuff
-Original Message-
From: Paul Fielding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 11:24 AM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] G.729? Worth it?
Low
Discussion'
Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] G.729? Worth it?
Funny thing about g729, when I setup my server to ONLY allow g729, and
then
put my Cisco 7960's phone into g729 mode, the first call went through
fine
as g729. If I put that party on hold, and dialed another number, that
too
would be g729
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Low bandwidth
Low CPU utilization
Best audio quality
I think you might want to clarify that Best audio quality is in
relation to other highly compressed codecs. Certainly my (albeit
limited) experience is that g711 is much more clear than g729.
Compared
Paul Rodan wrote:
Funny thing about g729, when I setup my server to ONLY allow g729, and then
put my Cisco 7960's phone into g729 mode, the first call went through fine
as g729. If I put that party on hold, and dialed another number, that too
would be g729. But if I tried to call 1 party, and
The MOS (Mean Opinion Score) scale is:
5=Excellent; 4=Good; 3=Fair; 2=Poor; 1=Bad.
Some values, taken from Carrier Grade Voice over IP by
Daniel Collins:
G.711 4.3
G.729 4.0
G.729AB3.9
GSM(full rate) 3.7
The above scores assume no packet loss, minimal delay, no echo.
At 01:49 PM 1/19/2005, you wrote:
There are systems that use G.711 when traffic is light, but
switch to compression codecs under heavy traffic to conserve
bandwidth. I don't know how/if this can be done in Asterisk.
--Stewart
I don't think there's anything like that built into * as it is now,
-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] G.729? Worth it?
At 01:49 PM 1/19/2005, you wrote:
There are systems that use G.711 when traffic is light, but
switch to compression codecs under heavy traffic to conserve
bandwidth. I don't know how/if this can be done in Asterisk.
--Stewart
I don't
On Jan 19, 2005, at 2:49 PM, Stewart Nelson wrote:
The MOS (Mean Opinion Score) scale is:
5=Excellent; 4=Good; 3=Fair; 2=Poor; 1=Bad.
Some values, taken from Carrier Grade Voice over IP by
Daniel Collins:
G.711 4.3
G.729 4.0
G.729AB3.9
GSM(full rate) 3.7
The above scores
On January 19, 2005 12:23 pm, Paul Fielding wrote:
I think you might want to clarify that Best audio quality is in relation to
other highly compressed codecs. Certainly my (albeit limited) experience
is that g711 is much more clear than g729. Compared against gsm, for
example, however, the
14 matches
Mail list logo
