search for: viewpapers

...t to packet losses which is good for VoIP. However, in my > opinion (and that of others) is that the price in terms of bit-rate is > too high and you might as well just add redundancy by transmitting > some > packets more than once (as proposed in > http://www.icassp2004.com/Papers/viewpapers.asp?papernum=3280 ). For > instance, if it goes to 20% packet loss, then transmitting 8 kbps > Speex > packets twice (4% effective loss) will be much better than iLBC at 15 > kbps. I think you'd have to look at how Speex (using PLC) compares to iLBC (using PLC) to make an accur...

Hi, Is there any comparison made between Speex and iLBC free codec? How would they compare in terms of quality, bitrate and CPU utilization? Thanks, Joe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/speex-dev/attachments/20050610/b79a3f46/attachment.htm

...is good for VoIP. However, in my > > opinion (and that of others) is that the price in terms of bit-rate is > > too high and you might as well just add redundancy by transmitting > > some > > packets more than once (as proposed in > > http://www.icassp2004.com/Papers/viewpapers.asp?papernum=3280 ). For > > instance, if it goes to 20% packet loss, then transmitting 8 kbps > > Speex > > packets twice (4% effective loss) will be much better than iLBC at 15 > > kbps. > > I think you'd have to look at how Speex (using PLC) compares to iLBC...

...oIP. However, in my >>> opinion (and that of others) is that the price in terms of bit-rate is >>> too high and you might as well just add redundancy by transmitting >>> some >>> packets more than once (as proposed in >>> http://www.icassp2004.com/Papers/viewpapers.asp?papernum=3280 ). For >>> instance, if it goes to 20% packet loss, then transmitting 8 kbps >>> Speex >>> packets twice (4% effective loss) will be much better than iLBC at 15 >>> kbps. >> >> I think you'd have to look at how Speex (using PLC)...

...nt, the codec is more robust to packet losses which is good for VoIP. However, in my opinion (and that of others) is that the price in terms of bit-rate is too high and you might as well just add redundancy by transmitting some packets more than once (as proposed in http://www.icassp2004.com/Papers/viewpapers.asp?papernum=3280 ). For instance, if it goes to 20% packet loss, then transmitting 8 kbps Speex packets twice (4% effective loss) will be much better than iLBC at 15 kbps. Regarding CPU utilization, I have no idea what iLBC requires. For a PC I don't think it actually matters and for embedded...

...e robust to packet losses which is good for VoIP. However, in my > opinion (and that of others) is that the price in terms of bit-rate is > too high and you might as well just add redundancy by transmitting some > packets more than once (as proposed in > http://www.icassp2004.com/Papers/viewpapers.asp?papernum=3280 ). For > instance, if it goes to 20% packet loss, then transmitting 8 kbps Speex > packets twice (4% effective loss) will be much better than iLBC at 15 > kbps. > > Regarding CPU utilization, I have no idea what iLBC requires. For a PC I > don't think it act...

Hi kind developers, I need select soon the best freeware VOIP codec, I see that all competitors are using iLBC because of the separate packets management. How speex behave in case of packets drop? Why other choice all iLBC? Thank you for any kind answer. Best regards. ------------------------------------- Roberto Della Pasqua Http: www.dellapasqua.com Email/Msn: roberto@dellapasqua.com