From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bifrost.lang.hm (mail.lang.hm [64.81.33.126]) (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 ECEF121F1CE for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 08:42:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asgard.lang.hm (asgard.lang.hm [10.0.0.100]) by bifrost.lang.hm (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id t3SFglZq029399; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 08:42:47 -0700 Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 08:42:47 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Toke_H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= In-Reply-To: <87k2wwu0l8.fsf@toke.dk> Message-ID: References: <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> <87k2wwu0l8.fsf@toke.dk> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="680960-962210325-1430235767=:8655" 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 15:42:56 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --680960-962210325-1430235767=:8655 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Tue, 28 Apr 2015, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > 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 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 > --680960-962210325-1430235767=:8655--