<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Steve Underwood wrote: <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:49790F8E.8000505@coppice.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><!---->Depends what you are after. Speex offers the quality of G.729 at around
the same processing load. However, nobody seems to want to pay for the
processing load of G.729. Almost everything uses G.729A. Half the
processing load, but significantly poorer quality.
VoIP is mostly a race to the bottom, and people wonder why it makes no
money for provides. :-\
</pre>
</blockquote>
And, at the wholesale level, it makes no sense whatsoever to compress
calls<br>
any more: bandwidth is so cheap (and has been for a while) that the
loss in <br>
call quality - especially from tandem compressions - and the increased <br>
processing requirements and other bits of expense do not stack up.
Case in<br>
point: we moved a route from G.711 to G.729, and saw the ACD drop from<br>
over 10 to under 7 minutes. It was a route to mobiles, so the audio
was being<br>
recompressed with the GSM codec on its way to the handsets.
Economically,<br>
had we carried on using G.729, we'd have lost about 30% of our margin on<br>
that route.<br>
<br>
--Dave<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
David Knell, Director, 3C Limited
T: 020 8114 5002 F: 020 3002 7257 M: 07773 800623
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.3c.co.uk">http://www.3c.co.uk</a> </pre>
</body>
</html>