For wholesale termination setups, I think it makes it much more cost-effective to implement G.729 or even G.723. They can never be the same quality as G.711, but it saves bandwidth by multiple whole numbers, and is therefore, more sought after in markets where BW is expensive. One a side note, we were thinking of deploying a FS solution for our new retail platform. We are looking for a vendor who can provide a very good billing platform. Can you recommend me some? We are willing to pay for the service, but would rather go with an opensource project that provides paid support. Thank you in advance for your suggestions. Regards HASSAN On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Steve Underwood<steveu@coppice.org> wrote:
Nyamul Hassan wrote:
Hi,
I just noted Micheal Collins mention "Enjoy lower quality G.729 calls". By "lower quality" do you mean G.729 in TC400B is lower in quality compared to software compression? Or is that comparing G.729 with G.711?
I think he is just saddened by the way people tolerant crappy quality, and how slow the takeup of wideband voice has been.
The TC400B doesn't do G.729. It does G.729A, which is significantly lower in quality. However, G.729A is what almost all equipment that vaguely says G.729 actually implements. Its lousy, but few people care. The TC400B works as well or as badly as anything else.
Steve
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org