[VoiceOps] G.729 A/B Experiences

[Peter E]

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