It has nothing to do with bandwidth.
It has everything to do with your routing gear!
___
Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http
@lists.digium.com
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users]
super high bandwidth codec
It has nothing to do with bandwidth.
It has everything to do with your routing
gear!
___
Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http
Title: Message
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 9:11
PMTo: asterisk-users@lists.digium.comSubject: Re:
[Asterisk-Users] super high bandwidth codec
It has nothing to do
I don’t know if I have the same experiences.
Usually my Skype calls are very garbled at first. I find that my G729 Asterisk
calls are better quality. You can try using ULAW if you have the
bandwidth. It. might make the “quality” sound better.
Maybe it’s your SIP client/hardware
phone t
Dean Collins wrote:
I've just gotten off a skype conference call and it pisses me off that
the quality of skype is higher than my asterisk calls.
Is there such a thing as a super high bandwidth codec?
Asterisk does not support "wideband" codecs as far as I know. Most
telephony gear expects m
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 11:54:17PM -0700, Storm D. J. Petersen wrote:
>I don’t know if I have the same experiences. Usually my Skype
>calls are very garbled at first. I find that my G729 Asterisk calls
>are better quality. You can try using ULAW if you have the bandwidth.
>It. mig
Yes and ilbc is more robust against packet loss, jitter etc. with
using not very much but less more bandwith. Asterisk has support for
ilbc and there are many providers offering PSTN termination with ilbc
codec. And voice quality is better than g723. check out
http://www.ilbcfreeware.org/
Regards
Deniz Pecel wrote:
Yes and ilbc is more robust against packet loss, jitter etc. with
using not very much but less more bandwith. Asterisk has support for
ilbc and there are many providers offering PSTN termination with ilbc
codec. And voice quality is better than g723. check out
http://www.ilbcfr
Steve Kennedy wrote:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 11:54:17PM -0700, Storm D. J. Petersen wrote:
I don’t know if I have the same experiences. Usually my Skype
calls are very garbled at first. I find that my G729 Asterisk calls
are better quality. You can try using ULAW if you have the band
Steve Underwood wrote:
Steve Kennedy wrote:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 11:54:17PM -0700, Storm D. J. Petersen wrote:
I don’t know if I have the same experiences. Usually my Skype
calls are very garbled at first. I find that my G729 Asterisk calls
are better quality. You can try using U
Eric Wieling aka ManxPower wrote:
Steve Underwood wrote:
Steve Kennedy wrote:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 11:54:17PM -0700, Storm D. J. Petersen wrote:
I don’t know if I have the same experiences. Usually my Skype
calls are very garbled at first. I find that my G729 Asterisk calls
are
Steve Underwood wrote:
Eric Wieling aka ManxPower wrote:
>>
Do yu have a link for wideband-ilbc info?
It is described on the GIPS site, along with the narrow band ilbc. The
wideband one is not offered to the world on a royalty free basis, as the
narrow band one is. I have never looked at ho
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:14:44PM +0300, Deniz Pecel wrote:
> Yes and ilbc is more robust against packet loss, jitter etc. with
> using not very much but less more bandwith. Asterisk has support for
> ilbc and there are many providers offering PSTN termination with ilbc
> codec. And voice quality
http://www.globalipsound.com
Try there.
/b
On Jul 25, 2005, at 8:15 AM, Eric Wieling aka ManxPower wrote:
Steve Underwood wrote:
Steve Kennedy wrote:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 11:54:17PM -0700, Storm D. J. Petersen
wrote:
I don’t know if I have the same experiences. Usually my
Skyp
>>> Skype uses wideband-ilbc.
>>>
>>
I don't think thats right. I think it just uses iLBC over it's own
proprietary Voip protocol.
http://www.skype.com/help/faq/technical.html
How much bandwidth does Skype use while I'm in a call?
Skype automatically selects the best codec depending
Geoff Manning wrote:
Skype uses wideband-ilbc.
I don't think thats right. I think it just uses iLBC over it's own
proprietary Voip protocol.
http://www.skype.com/help/faq/technical.html
How much bandwidth does Skype use while I'm in a call?
Skype automatically selects the best codec d
Brian Capouch wrote:
> Geoff Manning wrote:
>
> Skype uses wideband-ilbc.
>
>>
>> I don't think thats right. I think it just uses iLBC over it's own
>> proprietary Voip protocol.
>> http://www.skype.com/help/faq/technical.html
>> How much bandwidth does Skype use while I'm in a call?
Brian Capouch wrote:
> Geoff Manning wrote:
>
> Skype uses wideband-ilbc.
>
>>
>> I don't think thats right. I think it just uses iLBC over it's own
>> proprietary Voip protocol.
>> http://www.skype.com/help/faq/technical.html
>> How much bandwidth does Skype use while I'm in a call?
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:50:11 -0700, Andrew C. Brown wrote:
>Brian Capouch wrote:
>> Geoff Manning wrote:
>>
>> Skype uses wideband-ilbc.
>>
>
>>>
>>> I don't think thats right. I think it just uses iLBC over it's own
>>> proprietary Voip protocol.
>>> http://www.skype.com/help/faq/tec
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 10:18:35PM -0500, Michael Graves wrote:
> A recent blog entry indicated that GIPS was issuing licenses for its
> technology from a mere $50k for "unlimited licenses" with respect to an
> agreement with Microsoft. I don't have a huge concern about bandwidth
> limits. If I co
Michael Graves wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:50:11 -0700, Andrew C. Brown wrote:
>
>
>>Brian Capouch wrote:
>>
>>>Geoff Manning wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>Skype uses wideband-ilbc.
>>>
>>
I don't think thats right. I think it just uses iLBC over it's own
proprietary Voip protocol.
>>
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 10:42:35PM -0700, Andrew C. Brown wrote:
> >
> > A recent blog entry indicated that GIPS was issuing licenses for its
> > technology from a mere $50k for "unlimited licenses" with respect to an
> > agreement with Microsoft. I don't have a huge concern about bandwidth
> > li
Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 10:42:35PM -0700, Andrew C. Brown wrote:
>
>>>A recent blog entry indicated that GIPS was issuing licenses for its
>>>technology from a mere $50k for "unlimited licenses" with respect to an
>>>agreement with Microsoft. I don't have a huge concern abou
Andrew C. Brown wrote:
> BTW, with all this talk about "wideband iLBC", we should probably start
> using correct terms since iLBC actually stands for "internet Low
> Bandwidth Codec". So "wb iLBC" is an oxymoron.
Oops. Correcting myself, iLBC stands for "internet Low Bitrate Codec",
which is not s
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 08:50:54PM -0700, Andrew C. Brown wrote:
> Andrew C. Brown wrote:
> > BTW, with all this talk about "wideband iLBC", we should probably start
> > using correct terms since iLBC actually stands for "internet Low
> > Bandwidth Codec". So "wb iLBC" is an oxymoron.
>
> Oops. Co
25 matches
Mail list logo
