[AVT] Re: Audio/Video and packet loss

lazzaro <lazzaro@eecs.berkeley.edu> Sat, 22 April 2006 16:29 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FXKz3-0004gS-79; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 12:29:21 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FXKz2-0004gN-20 for avt@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 12:29:20 -0400
Received: from gateway0.eecs.berkeley.edu ([169.229.60.93]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FXKz0-0000nZ-Mi for avt@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 12:29:20 -0400
Received: from [128.32.34.73] (dhcp-34-73.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.34.73]) (authenticated bits=0) by gateway0.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (8.13.6/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k3MGTGQb028208 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 22 Apr 2006 09:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E1FXKWi-0006UC-4X@megatron.ietf.org>
References: <E1FXKWi-0006UC-4X@megatron.ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v749.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <20DE4CC2-0A84-43B6-BC63-2568130B948D@eecs.berkeley.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: lazzaro <lazzaro@eecs.berkeley.edu>
Subject: [AVT] Re: Audio/Video and packet loss
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 09:29:14 -0700
To: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.749.3)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3
Cc: lazzaro <lazzaro@eecs.berkeley.edu>
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org

On Apr 22, 2006, at 9:00 AM, avt-request@ietf.org wrote:
> In general, which type of media flow (audio or video) is more  
> affected with packet loss in an IP network ???
>
> Is this just dependant on the CODEC algorithm used by the audio or  
> video or maybe there is a media that is more sensitive for any  
> given reason ???


In the limiting case of running a low-latency stream
and hitting a long dropout (many hundreds of
milliseconds), the video artifact (a still image) is
much less objectionable that the audio artifact
(a concealment algorithm hitting its limits of
pleasantness, or a dropout).   So, I'd say audio,
since its the limiting cases that tend to make
customers say "this is junk".

---
John Lazzaro
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro
lazzaro [at] cs [dot] berkeley [dot] edu
---



_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt