Would it not make more sense for answerphone messages to be sent in low
bitrate MP3 instead of .wav which takes up loads more bandwidth?  There
doesn't appear to be an option for this at sipgate.  Ipersonally would
welcome low bitrate mp3 for the sending of voicemail to email addreseses.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"Tony" <00000@000.00> wrote in message
news:5i2pbfF3ksnvqU1@mid.individual.net...
> Would it not make more sense for answerphone messages to be sent in low
> bitrate MP3 instead of .wav which takes up loads more bandwidth?  There
> doesn't appear to be an option for this at sipgate.  Ipersonally would
> welcome low bitrate mp3 for the sending of voicemail to email addreseses.

You may be correct about the advantages of one format over another, but just
I'd pop in to say hat Voipfone also use .wav files.

Henry.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"Henry Hooray" <yri6tus02@sneakeLEAVETHISOUTmail.com> wrote
in message news:5i2psrF3n9v5fU1@mid.individual.net
: : "Tony" <00000@000.00> wrote in message
: : news:5i2pbfF3ksnvqU1@mid.individual.net...
: : : Would it not make more sense for answerphone messages
: : : to be sent in low bitrate MP3 instead of .wav which
: : : takes up loads more bandwidth?  There doesn't appear
: : : to be an option for this at sipgate.  Ipersonally
: : : would welcome low bitrate mp3 for the sending of
: : : voicemail to email addreseses.
: :
: : You may be correct about the advantages of one format
: : over another, but just I'd pop in to say hat Voipfone
: : also use .wav files.

Why not make the suggestion to them..?

Ivor

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:09:33 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:


>Why not make the suggestion to them..?

Why don't you  seeing that you are their UK paid representative even
though you have denied this fact many times like you have  denied
being a European.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <5i2pbfF3ksnvqU1@mid.individual.net>, Tony <00000@000.00> wrote:
>Would it not make more sense for answerphone messages to be sent in low
>bitrate MP3 instead of .wav which takes up loads more bandwidth?  There
>doesn't appear to be an option for this at sipgate.  Ipersonally would
>welcome low bitrate mp3 for the sending of voicemail to email addreseses.

It's probably because converting uLaw or aLaw which is the "native" voice
codec into WAV is virtually free in CPU cycle terms. Converting to mp3,
etc. is expensive, (more CPU cycles required - sometimes millions more)
and when you have the potential to be converting and storing 10's-1000's
a minute, you need as much CPU power as you possibly can get.

Gordon

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"Tony" <00000@000.00> wrote:

>Would it not make more sense for answerphone messages to be sent in low
>bitrate MP3 instead of .wav which takes up loads more bandwidth?  There
>doesn't appear to be an option for this at sipgate.  Ipersonally would
>welcome low bitrate mp3 for the sending of voicemail to email addreseses.

Actually, its much better to create a low bit rate .WAV file with GSM codec,
this will be more efficent than a .MP3. I'm sure this is what they are doing
.

Linus


--
Linus Surguy - Magrathea Telecommunications Ltd. Wholesale and retail teleph
one
services. www.magrathea-telecom.co.uk www.uknumber.co.uk [url]www.callthrough.co.uk[/ur
l]
Looking for VoIP ? We're the largest wholesale numbering supplier in the UK!

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"Tony" <00000@000.00> wrote in message
news:5i2pbfF3ksnvqU1@mid.individual.net...
> Would it not make more sense for answerphone messages to be sent in low
> bitrate MP3 instead of .wav which takes up loads more bandwidth?  There
> doesn't appear to be an option for this at sipgate.  Ipersonally would
> welcome low bitrate mp3 for the sending of voicemail to email addreseses.

I would agree with you, especially on the occasions that I have had to
download them in a
hotel room via GPRS

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Tony wrote:
> Would it not make more sense for answerphone messages to be sent in low
> bitrate MP3 instead of .wav which takes up loads more bandwidth?  There
> doesn't appear to be an option for this at sipgate.  Ipersonally would
> welcome low bitrate mp3 for the sending of voicemail to email addreseses.

.wav is only wrapper.  Lots of different audio encoding types can fit
inside.  Lots of them using less bandwidth than MP3.

Tim

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

<mymail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
 news:v0job3tgc154g476a4ja39juuren7krnmo@
4ax.com
: : On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:09:33 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
: : <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
: :
: :
: : : Why not make the suggestion to them..?
: :
: : Why don't you  seeing that you are their UK paid
: : representative even though you have denied this fact
: : many times like you have  denied being a European.

Put up or shut up, Ron. If you have *proof* that I am employed by Sipgate
then cite it here.

Otherwise STFU.


Ivor

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Tony wrote:
> Would it not make more sense for answerphone messages to be sent in low
> bitrate MP3 instead of .wav which takes up loads more bandwidth?  There
> doesn't appear to be an option for this at sipgate.  Ipersonally would
> welcome low bitrate mp3 for the sending of voicemail to email addreseses.
>
>
>
mp3 is a proprietary format and so has to be paid for, whereas wav is not

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]