2 ms·
Either way, both are pretty highly compressed audio sources but AMR lets you drag the quality even lower. That may be what I'm thinking of. And IIRC, regarding
by mindcrime 5y ago
Either way, both are pretty highly compressed audio sources but AMR lets you drag the quality even lower.
That may be what I'm thinking of. And IIRC, regarding land-line phones, the issue of compression varied depending on whether you were placing a local call or a long-distance call, and varied depending on the long-distance carrier. But, to be fair, I haven't thought about most of this stuff, or studied these issues, in about 20 years, since I last worked for a company that did telephony work. So quite possibly my memory is wrong, or my knowledge is just outdated now.
- vel0city 5y agoIt could be those long-distance carriers were transcoding the call at either end and using a more lossy codec internally. G.711 isn't exactly the most efficient compression algorithm but it was relatively cheap to work with when it came out which is why it was so popular. In the 2000's doing the transcoding on both ends of the distance carrier would probably be cheaper than adding more capacity on whatever long-haul lines were there, cheaper to buy some new hardware at each end instead of laying yet another cable or swap out all the RF equipment in between.