<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Steve Underwood <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:steveu@coppice.org">steveu@coppice.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">Nyamul Hassan wrote:<br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> I just noted Micheal Collins mention "Enjoy lower quality G.729<br>
> calls". By "lower quality" do you mean G.729 in TC400B is lower in<br>
> quality compared to software compression? Or is that comparing G.729<br>
> with G.711?<br>
><br>
</div>I think he is just saddened by the way people tolerant crappy quality,<br>
and how slow the takeup of wideband voice has been.<br>
<br>
The TC400B doesn't do G.729. It does G.729A, which is significantly<br>
lower in quality. However, G.729A is what almost all equipment that<br>
vaguely says G.729 actually implements. Its lousy, but few people care.<br>
The TC400B works as well or as badly as anything else.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Steve<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Well said! Like Steve has pointed out in the past: G729/G729A is a race to the bottom. After using WB and UWB codecs all day every day for the past 6 months I just can't live with G729 or even GSM for that matter. However, to each his own.<br>
-MC<br></div></div><br>