Re: [Bloat] DSLReports Speed Test has latency measurement built-in

[David Lang <david@lang.hm>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1564 bytes --]

On Tue, 28 Apr 2015, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:

> David Lang <david@lang.hm> 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

we aren't disagreeing here. "a few hundred ms of consistant latency" is starts 
to top out around the half second range.

But if we are labeling something "VoIP breaks here", then it needs to be broken, 
not just annoying to some peopel.

David Lang

> 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
>