Tue Sep 5 14:32:44 MST 2006
take advantage of the lost packet concealment.
I understand this has something to do with the jitter
If lost packet concealment doesnt work with ilbc, I can
assume the same applies to other codecs who claim to have
Hopefully this will be fixed sometime soon, especially for
us folks with less than ideal IP throughput.
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 10:22:20 +1000
Adam Hart <adam at teragen.com.au> wrote:
> Steve Underwood wrote:
> > Adam Hart wrote:
> >> Daniel Niasoff wrote:
> >>> Is G729 more sensitive to packet loss or delays due
> to its higher
> >>> compression. If Ive 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
> > 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
> Asterisk-Users mailing list
> Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
Herbalife Independent Distributor http://www.healthiest.co.za
More information about the asterisk-users