Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > VOIP > 128Kbps channel on VOIP?

Reply
Thread Tools

128Kbps channel on VOIP?

 
 
MM
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2003
Miguel Cruz wrote:
> MM <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>How about trying the revolutionary new technology: DoIP (Data over IP)?

>>
>>Isn't that DIP for short..?

>
> Oops, my mistake.
>
> miguel


It was supposed to be a joke!

MM

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
NO SPAMMERS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2003
Miguel Cruz wrote:

> Scott <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
>>> How about trying the revolutionary new technology: DoIP (Data over IP)?

>>
>> Thanks, but I have no choice...The protocol I must use is VOIP. The data
>> to transport is actually voice, but at 128Kbps. I was just saying that
>> somehow this stream must be split into two 64kbps and then
>> reassembled...I just wondered if VOIP has support for 128Kbps audio.

>
> VoIP isn't a protocol, it's an open-ended set of technologies. I am sure
> you can find a codec that wants 128K.
>


VoIP is Voice over Internet Protocol. If VoIP is not a protocol, then why
there is a P on VoIP?

> It is entirely unclear to me what the real restriction is that you are
> facing. Why "must" you use VoIP? Without an answer to that question
> (basically, a description of your connectivity environment) nobody can
> help you much.
>
> miguel


--
NO_SPAMMERS
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Phil McKerracher
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2003

"NO SPAMMERS" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:BGjlb.602993$Oz4.610734@rwcrnsc54...
> Miguel Cruz wrote:
>
> > Scott <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> (E-Mail Removed) (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
> >>> How about trying the revolutionary new technology: DoIP (Data over

IP)?
> >>
> >> Thanks, but I have no choice...The protocol I must use is VOIP. The

data
> >> to transport is actually voice, but at 128Kbps. I was just saying that
> >> somehow this stream must be split into two 64kbps and then
> >> reassembled...I just wondered if VOIP has support for 128Kbps audio.

> >
> > VoIP isn't a protocol, it's an open-ended set of technologies. I am sure
> > you can find a codec that wants 128K.
> >

>
> VoIP is Voice over Internet Protocol. If VoIP is not a protocol, then why
> there is a P on VoIP?


Because it's Voice over (Internet Protocol), not (Voice over Internet)
protocol.

He's right, it's just a set of technologies.

--
Phil McKerracher
www.mckerracher.org


 
Reply With Quote
 
MM
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2003
NO SPAMMERS wrote:
> Miguel Cruz wrote:
>
>
>>Scott <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>(E-Mail Removed) (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
>>>
>>>>How about trying the revolutionary new technology: DoIP (Data over IP)?
>>>
>>>Thanks, but I have no choice...The protocol I must use is VOIP. The data
>>>to transport is actually voice, but at 128Kbps. I was just saying that
>>>somehow this stream must be split into two 64kbps and then
>>>reassembled...I just wondered if VOIP has support for 128Kbps audio.

>>
>>VoIP isn't a protocol, it's an open-ended set of technologies. I am sure
>>you can find a codec that wants 128K.
>>

>
>
> VoIP is Voice over Internet Protocol. If VoIP is not a protocol, then why
> there is a P on VoIP?
>
>
>>It is entirely unclear to me what the real restriction is that you are
>>facing. Why "must" you use VoIP? Without an answer to that question
>>(basically, a description of your connectivity environment) nobody can
>>help you much.
>>
>>miguel

>
>


Speaking of DIPs...

 
Reply With Quote
 
Miguel Cruz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2003
MM <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Miguel Cruz wrote:
>> MM <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> How about trying the revolutionary new technology: DoIP (Data over IP)?
>>>
>>> Isn't that DIP for short..?

>>
>> Oops, my mistake.

>
> It was supposed to be a joke!


I know, I was just acknowledging that your joke was better than mine.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
 
Reply With Quote
 
Miguel Cruz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2003
NO SPAMMERS <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Miguel Cruz wrote:
>> VoIP isn't a protocol, it's an open-ended set of technologies. I am sure
>> you can find a codec that wants 128K.

>
> VoIP is Voice over Internet Protocol. If VoIP is not a protocol, then why
> there is a P on VoIP?


It's Voice, over something called "Internet Protocol".

This works the same way that a "Coney Island hot dog" is not a dog.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neil Smith
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2003
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 06:12:25 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) (Miguel Cruz) wrote:

Or the same way George Bush is not - - - oh, wait, damn ....
Well I can dream

LOL

>It's Voice, over something called "Internet Protocol".
>
>This works the same way that a "Coney Island hot dog" is not a dog.
>
>miguel
>--
>Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu


================================================== ======
CaptionKit http://www.captionkit.com : Produce subtitled
internet media, transcripts and searchable video. Supports
Real Player, Quicktime and Windows Media Player.

VideoChat with friends online, get Freshly Toasted every
day at http://www.fresh-toast.net : NetMeeting solutions
for a connected world.
 
Reply With Quote
 
shope
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2003
"Scott" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> (E-Mail Removed) (Miguel Cruz) wrote in message

news:<TnVkb.37061$(E-Mail Removed)>.. .
> > Scott <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > > I am trying to transport 128Kbps data over VOIP. Is this possible?
> > > Is there a standard applicable to this effort? I realize that the
> > > G.711 rate is 64kbps, so it would be just like transporting two
> > > regular G.711 channels. The problem would be splitting up the 128Kbps
> > > and then resynchronizing the two on the other end.

> >
> > Isn't G.711 lossy? You get less data back out than you put in.
> >
> > How about trying the revolutionary new technology: DoIP (Data over IP)?
> >
> > miguel

>
> Thanks, but I have no choice...The protocol I must use is VOIP. The
> data to transport is actually voice, but at 128Kbps. I was just
> saying that somehow this stream must be split into two 64kbps and then
> reassembled...I just wondered if VOIP has support for 128Kbps audio.


i was in a cisco presentation when they mentioned that their phones support
256 Kbps for better than G.711 audio.

FWIW there are lots of standards in the broadcast industry for audio codecs
at better quality levels - some of it gets used for audio feeds over ISDN
for football reports and so on.

>
> Scott

--
Regards

Stephen Hope - remove xx from email to reply


 
Reply With Quote
 
Hank Karl
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2003
On 21 Oct 2003 08:59:30 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) (Scott) wrote:

>(E-Mail Removed) (Miguel Cruz) wrote in message news:<TnVkb.37061$(E-Mail Removed)>.. .
>> Scott <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> > I am trying to transport 128Kbps data over VOIP. Is this possible?
>> > Is there a standard applicable to this effort? I realize that the
>> > G.711 rate is 64kbps, so it would be just like transporting two
>> > regular G.711 channels. The problem would be splitting up the 128Kbps
>> > and then resynchronizing the two on the other end.

>>
>> Isn't G.711 lossy? You get less data back out than you put in.
>>
>> How about trying the revolutionary new technology: DoIP (Data over IP)?
>>
>> miguel

>
>Thanks, but I have no choice...The protocol I must use is VOIP. The
>data to transport is actually voice, but at 128Kbps. I was just
>saying that somehow this stream must be split into two 64kbps and then
>reassembled...I just wondered if VOIP has support for 128Kbps audio.

is that H.323, SIP, MGCP/Megaco, or what?

G.722 compresses 7K audio to 64K (or 56K or 48K). Other codecs will
compress this 7K to 16K. what type of codec uses 128K?

You can probably select your codec, most of the VoIP signaling
protocols allow you to do so.
>
>Scott


 
Reply With Quote
 
chris@nospam.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2003
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:24:31 GMT, MM <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Neil Smith wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:26:31 GMT, root
>> <(E-Mail Removed),administrator@localhost> wrote:
>>
>>>I thought that's what UDP is all about -- to transfer data over IP.

>>
>> Isn't UDP potentially lossy as well ? Better stick to TCP for fax
>> data or you might lose that important signature ! BTW do www.tpc.com
>> still do email to fax services ? Might be worth a try for low volume
>> fax data.

>
>UDP is not lossy. G.711, like the MP3 audio format, takes an audio
>stream and creates an approximation of that stream that requires less
>bandwidth to store or transmit. Once this process is done, it can't be
>undone. That is, there is no way of recreating the original audio stream.


Note quite like MP3, where it uses a lossy compression method. The
G.711 codec doesn't compress or alter the 'digitized' data. The loss
actually occurs when you sample the analog data stream (8bit, 8kHz
typically for voice).


>UDP does not alter the data passed to it by an application. It differs
>from TCP in that TCP sequences the data and requires acknowledgement of
>receipt of that data. If a piece of data is lost, the TCP protocol will
>detect this and request that the data be retransmitted, completely
>transparent to the application. The cost of doing this is larger
>packets due to overhead, plus more traffic due to the acknowledgements.
> UDP just ships out the data without sequencing or acknowledgements.
>It is up to the application to detect and retransmit data. If an
>application that uses UDP loses data, it's the fault of the application,
>not the tranport protocol.


Also, it's kinda pointless to use TCP for realtime data because if a
packet isn't delivered on time, you can't use it. The Cisco fax relay
protocol still doesn't use TCP, but rather sends the same packets
twice to provide redundancy.

-Chris
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Dual channel or triple channel? Zeke Computer Support 0 06-07-2010 03:40 PM
Re: Dual channel or triple channel? Tony Computer Support 0 06-06-2010 08:32 AM
Re: Dual channel or triple channel? VanguardLH Computer Support 1 06-06-2010 01:36 AM
Six channel or two channel sound on DVD? cydeweys@gmail.com DVD Video 1 10-10-2005 04:51 AM
Have two ATA100 Seagate drives in a vp6, one IDE channel comes up as mode 5 in winxp but the other channel is stuck in mode 4 Tim Computer Support 3 02-23-2004 03:35 AM



Advertisments