From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail2.tohojo.dk (mail2.tohojo.dk [77.235.48.147]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEA9021F1F7 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 01:19:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail2.tohojo.dk Sender: toke@toke.dk DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=toke.dk; s=201310; t=1430209156; bh=mvGB/AvlINyluvvRh+DFHSHX3dovpr8ROk9vPrPlrF8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=EJ6oYtyN4fTIOlwkO5wi4pyrlS+P19E17aHt9EFV7A7oR5bSsXr9FbhGoSoMGqf2m IGg3nn6d4bjBQB1qxjxjaDiYR2RApyILITnybqvde5uHtJymZWjdGpemyvR0cKurYM GlkMEPAQruwwbbqjLKmbpSJYw+seaMMKSB23TOq4= Received: by alrua-x1.borgediget.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D1D1F3A3A1; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 10:19:15 +0200 (CEST) From: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: David Lang References: <1429717468.18561.90.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <5537CDB7.60301@orange.com> <1429722979.18561.112.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <5537DA20.1090008@orange.com> <5537DE4D.8090100@orange.com> <553882D7.4020301@orange.com> <1429771718.22254.32.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <6C0D04CF-53AA-4D18-A4E4-B746AF6487C7@gmx.de> <87wq123p5r.fsf@toke.dk> <2288B614-B415-4017-A842-76E8F5DFDE4C@gmx.de> <553B06CE.1050209@superduper.net> <14ceed3c818.27f7.e972a4f4d859b00521b2b659602cb2f9@superduper.net> <0C930D43-A05B-48E2-BC01-792CAA72CAD1@gmx.de> <1D70AD75-F177-4146-A4D6-2FD6DB408B63@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 10:19:15 +0200 In-Reply-To: (David Lang's message of "Tue, 28 Apr 2015 01:01:36 -0700 (PDT)") X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87k2wwu0l8.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] DSLReports Speed Test has latency measurement built-in X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 08:20:22 -0000 David Lang writes: > Voice is actually remarkably tolerant of pure latency. While 60ms of > jitter makes a connection almost unusalbe, a few hundred ms of > consistant latency isn't a problem. IIRC (from my college days when > ATM was the new, hot technology) you have to get up to around a second > of latency before pure-consistant latency starts to break things. Well isn't that more a case of "the human brain will compensate for the latency". Sure, you *can* talk to someone with half a second of delay, but it's bloody *annoying*. :P That, for me, is the main reason to go with lower figures. I don't want to just be able to physically talk with someone without the codec breaking, I want to be able to *enjoy* the experience and not be totally exhausted by latency fatigue afterwards. One of the things that really struck a chord with me was hearing the people from the LoLa project (http://www.conservatorio.trieste.it/artistica/ricerca/progetto-lola-low-latency/lola-case-study.pdf) talk about how using their big fancy concert video conferencing system to just talk to each other, it was like having a real face-to-face conversation with none of the annoyances of regular video chat. -Toke