Adam Hart wrote:
Steve Underwood wrote:
Adam Hart wrote:
Daniel Niasoff wrote:
Is G729 more sensitive to packet loss or delays due to it’s higher
compression. If I’ve generally got the bandwidth available, am I
best sticking to ulaw.
G.729 has lost packet concealment, G.711 doesn't. G.711 will sound
better otherwise if you can afford the bandwidth.
Eh? G.729 has no particular features to allow more effective packet
loss concealment. iLBC has, but at the cost of a substantially higher
bit rate. In fact G.711 is a little ahead of G.729 in the regard,
since packets are completely independant. The smoothing in G.729
means you need the previous packet to decode the current one properly.
Regards,
Steve
I believe you're mistaken - G.729 works similar to iLBC and speex.
iLBC works better as the packets are independent but G.729 still has a
function for packet loss concealment.
prehaps have a look at http://www.speex.org/comparison.html
It would probably help if you understood what that table means. It is
very misleading. G.729 has features to mitigate the awfulness of a lost
packet. It has nothing to help conceal lost packets really well. What I
said is correct. If you fudge over a lost G.711 packet it has less bad
effect than fudging over a lost G.729 packet. There is no missing
smoothing data, so at least the packets you have are handled properly.
Regards,
Steve
_______________________________________________
Asterisk-Users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
