?As far as I can tell, G.729 is still the best intersection of low bandwidth and call quality, although the OPUS fans have their own opinion. It certainly leads to intelligible speech, though it can make for some amusing gibberish when applied to hold music, given the extreme code word contractions it uses to achieve its vicious compression ratio. However, it's relatively CPU intensive and frequently requires transcoding from G.711 PSTN table stakes. Moreover, in general things are going in the other direction, e.g. higher bandwidth ?HD codecs.? This leads me to ask: why, as a North American operator, would you want to do this today, in light of the capacity and price of available bandwidth today? Generally speaking, G.729 is something like a niche interest for international haulers and folk operating in developing world markets where bandwidth remains stubbornly expensive. -- Alex?Balashov?|?Principal?|?Evariste?Systems?LLC 1447?Peachtree?Street?NE,?Suite?700 Atlanta,?GA?30309 United?States Tel:?+1-800-250-5920?(toll-free)?/?+1-678-954-0671 (direct) Web:?http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/ Sent?from?my?BlackBerry. ? Original Message ? From: Robert Johnson Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 18:56 To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: [VoiceOps] G.729 A/B Experiences Hey everyone, I'm looking to deploy a lower-bandwidth codec, and am wondering what everyone's experience has been with G.729, primary regarding voice quality. Historically, we have limited our codec use to G.711. Some test calls in the lab are showing promising results, I'm just curious what might happen in the real-world. Thank you for your time!! -- Robert Johnson BendTel, Inc. (541)389-4020 Central Oregon's Own Telephone and Internet Service Provider www.bendtel.com/about/ _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops