[Speex-dev] Who is using the jitter buffer?

Lis lis at 1234567890qwertzuiopasdfghjklyxcvbnm.de
Mon Mar 20 17:08:07 PST 2006

hm would it be best to send the packet with all lost information the time + 
where time is your transmition time and x as a timeshake, becouse your
client need to transmit continously.
Thats becouse the jitterbuffer needs to be the double of transmition time?

> Jean-Marc Valin <Jean-Marc.Valin at USherbrooke.ca> wrote:
>> > I would think you might also do better if you interleaved packets when
>> > you did this: instead of sending packets like this: [0,1] [2,3] [4,5]
>> > [6,7], send them like this: [0,2] [1,3] [4,6] [5,7] In this way, if one
>> > packet is dropped you don't lose two consecutive voice frames.
>> No, but you make the latency even worse. I think 01, 23, 45, ... is
>> still probably best.
> How about a compromise then: use 01, 23, 45, ... most of the time, but
> switch to 02, 13, 46, ... when single packets are getting dropped on a
> regular basis.  But, this would only pay off if:
> 1) Having only one packet dropped at a time happens frequently enough
> 2) [0,2] [lost] [4,6] really sounds much better than [0,1] [lost] [4,5]
> 3) You're putting a minimal number of frames into each packet (like 2)
> 4) You have enough control of your protocol to implement such a system
> Still, it sounds like an interesting idea.  I like the idea of a system
> that adapts to network conditions in a smart way.  (This is the reason
> we use a jitter buffer, right?)  What I'm worried about is the code
> complexity of such a system becoming difficult to manage as more
> features like this get combined.
> I almost wanted to say that even perfect correction of 40ms gaps isn't
> that useful, since humans can deal with these gaps on their own (even
> without interpolation) and not miss what was said.  But it's a matter
> of smoothing over an annoyance, which could very well be worthwhile.
> And maybe it could help a little if it happened to be adjacent to a
> larger packet loss event that caused bigger problems.
> Tom
> _______________________________________________
> Speex-dev mailing list
> Speex-dev at xiph.org
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/speex-dev

More information about the Speex-dev mailing list