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/
?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
If you like the way cellphones sound, you'll love G.729. I'll leave it at that. On 03/11/2016 06:50 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
?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!!
?Yeah, touch?. I just meant that for 8 Kbps that's pretty good. That doesn't mean it's a worthwhile call experience. -- 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: Paul Timmins Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 19:05 To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] G.729 A/B Experiences If you like the way cellphones sound, you'll love G.729. I'll leave it at that. On 03/11/2016 06:50 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
?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!!
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
On 03/11/2016 03:50 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
?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
One of our strategies in combating QoS issues when a customer is "off-network" is to order a dedicated 1.5/1 ADSL connection and bring it back to our network on the ILEC's ATM network. But we quickly run out of call capacity using G.711. Alternatively, we may order a T1, depending on a number of items (cost, distance, others). I'm also looking to deploy G.722, but that's another conversation. -- Robert Johnson BendTel, Inc. (541)389-4020 Central Oregon's Own Telephone and Internet Service Provider www.bendtel.com/about/
It's not as clear but it's still quite acceptable and in low bandwidth scenarios, one could argue, the quality can be better because you don't drop packets where you might with higher bandwidth codecs. On Mar 11, 2016, at 19:03, Robert Johnson <robert.j at bendtel.com> wrote:
On 03/11/2016 03:50 PM, Alex Balashov wrote: ?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
One of our strategies in combating QoS issues when a customer is "off-network" is to order a dedicated 1.5/1 ADSL connection and bring it back to our network on the ILEC's ATM network. But we quickly run out of call capacity using G.711. Alternatively, we may order a T1, depending on a number of items (cost, distance, others). I'm also looking to deploy G.722, but that's another conversation. -- 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
The thing to consider as well is that when there is packet loss for reasons other than bandwidth constraints, g711 will remain usable way beyond what the "low bandwidth" codecs will handle. We work with contact centres and only use G711. Our clients have abundant bandwidth, because bandwidth is cheap, G711 sounds better and is more resilient... why mess with a good thing. Best Regards, Ivan Kovacevic Vice President, Client Services Star Telecom | www.startelecom.ca | SIP Based Services for Contact Centers -----Original Message----- From: VoiceOps [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Peter E Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 7:14 PM To: Robert Johnson <robert.j at bendtel.com> Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] G.729 A/B Experiences It's not as clear but it's still quite acceptable and in low bandwidth scenarios, one could argue, the quality can be better because you don't drop packets where you might with higher bandwidth codecs. On Mar 11, 2016, at 19:03, Robert Johnson <robert.j at bendtel.com> wrote:
On 03/11/2016 03:50 PM, Alex Balashov wrote: ?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
One of our strategies in combating QoS issues when a customer is "off-network" is to order a dedicated 1.5/1 ADSL connection and bring it back to our network on the ILEC's ATM network. But we quickly run out of call capacity using G.711. Alternatively, we may order a T1, depending on a number of items (cost, distance, others). I'm also looking to deploy G.722, but that's another conversation. -- 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 _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Agreed. Keep 711 where you already have it and use it as your default and only adjust to 729 where bandwidth is a challenge. On Mar 11, 2016, at 19:19, Ivan Kovacevic <ivan.kovacevic at startelecom.ca> wrote: The thing to consider as well is that when there is packet loss for reasons other than bandwidth constraints, g711 will remain usable way beyond what the "low bandwidth" codecs will handle. We work with contact centres and only use G711. Our clients have abundant bandwidth, because bandwidth is cheap, G711 sounds better and is more resilient... why mess with a good thing. Best Regards, Ivan Kovacevic Vice President, Client Services Star Telecom | www.startelecom.ca | SIP Based Services for Contact Centers -----Original Message----- From: VoiceOps [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Peter E Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 7:14 PM To: Robert Johnson <robert.j at bendtel.com> Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] G.729 A/B Experiences It's not as clear but it's still quite acceptable and in low bandwidth scenarios, one could argue, the quality can be better because you don't drop packets where you might with higher bandwidth codecs.
On Mar 11, 2016, at 19:03, Robert Johnson <robert.j at bendtel.com> wrote:
On 03/11/2016 03:50 PM, Alex Balashov wrote: ?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
One of our strategies in combating QoS issues when a customer is "off-network" is to order a dedicated 1.5/1 ADSL connection and bring it back to our network on the ILEC's ATM network. But we quickly run out of call capacity using G.711. Alternatively, we may order a T1, depending on a number of items (cost, distance, others). I'm also looking to deploy G.722, but that's another conversation. -- 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 _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
?Where, in the USA, in 2016, is bandwidth constrained to the degree where delivering 711 is a challenge? I mean, outside of a shrinking number of rural markets where 1.5 Mbps is still a thing... -- 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.
We happen to be a service provider in rural America ;) Don't get me wrong, I plan to prioritize 711 (or 722) over 729 at all times; but it does make since in this market. On 03/11/2016 04:26 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
?Where, in the USA, in 2016, is bandwidth constrained to the degree where delivering 711 is a challenge?
I mean, outside of a shrinking number of rural markets where 1.5 Mbps is still a thing...
-- 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.
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Robert Johnson BendTel, Inc. (541)389-4020 Central Oregon's Own Telephone and Internet Service Provider www.bendtel.com/about/
Downtown Scottsdale, AZ, for one. On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com> wrote:
?Where, in the USA, in 2016, is bandwidth constrained to the degree where delivering 711 is a challenge?
I mean, outside of a shrinking number of rural markets where 1.5 Mbps is still a thing...
-- 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.
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
We had great customer feedback with it, and no issues. So I guess I say if you need it, do it. We've moved to 711 and 722 now that bandwith for our customers is essentially unlimited. Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 11, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Robert Johnson <robert.j at bendtel.com> wrote:
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
Depends on whether you want to provide a quality product or not. ?G.729 already hovers just above the line of "satisfied". ?The slightest impairment drives that below what is considered acceptable. ?I wouldn't deploy it. ? From: Robert Johnson <robert.j at bendtel.com> To: voiceops at voiceops.org Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 5:43 PM 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 Sent from Yahoo Mail From: Robert Johnson <robert.j at bendtel.com> To: voiceops at voiceops.org Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 5:43 PM 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
?Could you put their voice on wires (POTS/PRI/VoIP), and the rest of their data on fixed wireless? This doesn't necessarily give you any more calls per Kbps, but at least keeps voice and data independent. Wires for dependability, radio waves for bandwidth at the cost of some latency & packet loss. One consideration when using G.729 is how you're going to deliver it to a mostly non-G.729 world. Are your not-quite-broadband customers attached to some PBX that will handle it and send G.711 to your carriers? That's going to cost some CPU or dedicated transcoding hardware. Will your providers accept G.729 and transcode for you? Is there a cost for it? Or will your carriers blindly throw your G.729 at their LCR and hope something sticks?
Biased as all get out, but if your carrier doesn't support at least 729 and 711 find a new carrier. JM On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Calvin Ellison <calvin.ellison at voxox.com> wrote:
?Could you put their voice on wires (POTS/PRI/VoIP), and the rest of their data on fixed wireless? This doesn't necessarily give you any more calls per Kbps, but at least keeps voice and data independent. Wires for dependability, radio waves for bandwidth at the cost of some latency & packet loss.
One consideration when using G.729 is how you're going to deliver it to a mostly non-G.729 world. Are your not-quite-broadband customers attached to some PBX that will handle it and send G.711 to your carriers? That's going to cost some CPU or dedicated transcoding hardware. Will your providers accept G.729 and transcode for you? Is there a cost for it? Or will your carriers blindly throw your G.729 at their LCR and hope something sticks?
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Sure would be nice if a big carrier like bandwidth.com would natively support the OPUS codec! I think its going to take a big carrier like bandwidth.com or Level3 pushing the SBC/switch vendors to push OPUS. It would be the end all be all codec for voice. On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:01 AM, James Milko <jmilko at bandwidth.com> wrote:
Biased as all get out, but if your carrier doesn't support at least 729 and 711 find a new carrier.
JM
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Calvin Ellison <calvin.ellison at voxox.com
wrote:
?Could you put their voice on wires (POTS/PRI/VoIP), and the rest of their data on fixed wireless? This doesn't necessarily give you any more calls per Kbps, but at least keeps voice and data independent. Wires for dependability, radio waves for bandwidth at the cost of some latency & packet loss.
One consideration when using G.729 is how you're going to deliver it to a mostly non-G.729 world. Are your not-quite-broadband customers attached to some PBX that will handle it and send G.711 to your carriers? That's going to cost some CPU or dedicated transcoding hardware. Will your providers accept G.729 and transcode for you? Is there a cost for it? Or will your carriers blindly throw your G.729 at their LCR and hope something sticks?
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20160314/33f7e35e/att...>
On 03/11/2016 07:02 PM, Calvin Ellison wrote:
?Could you put their voice on wires (POTS/PRI/VoIP), and the rest of their data on fixed wireless? This doesn't necessarily give you any more calls per Kbps, but at least keeps voice and data independent. Wires for dependability, radio waves for bandwidth at the cost of some latency & packet loss.
There are a number of situations in which we do just this, but in doing so, and depending on the customers location, can price us out of the market. Such as a customer looking for >23 channels.
One consideration when using G.729 is how you're going to deliver it to a mostly non-G.729 world. Are your not-quite-broadband customers attached to some PBX that will handle it and send G.711 to your carriers? That's going to cost some CPU or dedicated transcoding hardware. Will your providers accept G.729 and transcode for you? Is there a cost for it? Or will your carriers blindly throw your G.729 at their LCR and hope something sticks?
We don't currently connect to any carrier via VoIP, all of the equipment to transcode G.711/G.729 -> T1 Trunking is already in place. Even in the event where we do connect to a carrier via VoIP, we'll transcode to G.711 (or other) before passing the call off.
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Robert Johnson BendTel, Inc. (541)389-4020 Central Oregon's Own Telephone and Internet Service Provider www.bendtel.com/about/
Our customers completely disagree with that. On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Anthony Orlando via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:
Depends on whether you want to provide a quality product or not. G.729 already hovers just above the line of "satisfied". The slightest impairment drives that below what is considered acceptable. I wouldn't deploy it.
------------------------------ *From:* Robert Johnson <robert.j at bendtel.com> *To:* voiceops at voiceops.org *Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2016 5:43 PM *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
Sent from Yahoo Mail <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=E-mail&c=MG_FNU_Feb16&af_sub1=E-mail&af_...> ------------------------------ *From:* Robert Johnson <robert.j at bendtel.com> *To:* voiceops at voiceops.org *Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2016 5:43 PM *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
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
One data point. Our ACDs for our international calling card type traffic increased by ~15% when we dropped G.729 and went to G.711. Whilst G.729 on its own is fine, a typical call path would be cell->us->cell, so there'd be at least three separate encodings and decodings. Call quality under these circumstances isn't great, and taking out one set of compression help noticeably. --Dave On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Carlos Alvarez <caalvarez at gmail.com> wrote:
Our customers completely disagree with that.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Anthony Orlando via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:
Depends on whether you want to provide a quality product or not. G.729 already hovers just above the line of "satisfied". The slightest impairment drives that below what is considered acceptable. I wouldn't deploy it.
------------------------------ *From:* Robert Johnson <robert.j at bendtel.com> *To:* voiceops at voiceops.org *Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2016 5:43 PM *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
Sent from Yahoo Mail <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=E-mail&c=MG_FNU_Feb16&af_sub1=E-mail&af_...> ------------------------------ *From:* Robert Johnson <robert.j at bendtel.com> *To:* voiceops at voiceops.org *Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2016 5:43 PM *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
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- David Knell, Director, TelNG T: +44 1223 797979 / +1 970-315-4721 W: http://www.telng.com H: http://www.daveknell.com
participants (11)
-
abalashov＠evaristesys.com -
avorlando＠yahoo.com -
caalvarez＠gmail.com -
calvin.ellison＠voxox.com -
colton.conor＠gmail.com -
david.knell＠telng.com -
ivan.kovacevic＠startelecom.ca -
jmilko＠bandwidth.com -
paul＠timmins.net -
peeip989＠gmail.com -
robert.j＠bendtel.com