<div>I second that Luki. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>We at <a href="http://www.cyberdyne-ip.com">www.cyberdyne-ip.com</a> (yes shameless plug) only use ulaw for termination. Of course we have to offer g729, GSM, etc. to our customers... but for best quality, we transcode to ulaw if we send the call to another carrier for termination. 729 may use less bandwidth and in turn cost less, but what is more important... cost or call quality?
<br> </div>
<div>My 2 cents,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>bp<br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 12/15/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Luki</b> <<a href="mailto:lugosoft@gmail.com">lugosoft@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">> But who in there right state if mind would use ulaw?<br>> Just take them away to the funny farm ha ha ho ho!! :-P
<br><br>I do. Exclusively. I personally don't like the g729 compression (audio<br>quality and license issues) any my customers definitely notice the<br>difference right away and wonder why the quality "degraded". I guess I
<br>spoiled them with ulaw. So no g729 here. g726-32 on the other hand was<br>acceptable, although the difference is still noticeable.<br><br>--Luki<br>_______________________________________________<br>--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by
<a href="http://Easynews.com">Easynews.com</a> --<br><br>asterisk-users mailing list<br>To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:<br> <a href="http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users">http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
</a><br></blockquote></div><br>