Skype V Blueface

mickger

I've had Skype and Blueface for a while now and after extensive testing with my new logitech headset(80 Euros in PC World) i have found that call quality has been much better and clearer with Skype.I know others have found it the other way round just wondering what your views on which you find the best.

zap

well with skype you can forget about getting an irish number for incoming calls.

mickger

zap wrote:

well with skype you can forget about getting an irish number for incoming calls.

Yeah i know that but i'm just comparing each for quality of calls only.

causal

As far as softphones go I found X-Lite & blueface far superior to skype.
As for a VoIP hardware solution to any softphone - hardware is far superior.

With skype I always got comment from the other party that the line was crappy etc. Some calls were impossible.
With X-Lite and blueface there was slight comment when using PC + Mic (they'd say "you sound far away"; I'd say "It's a phonecall, I am far away" ); but this was remedied by a decent headset.

Not totally on topic for this thread but:
imho skype is ideal for free PC-PC calls - but it's not a substitute for your landline; whereas blueface is a supreme replacement for your landline.
Horses for courses really.

causal

aaronc

mickger wrote:

I've had Skype and Blueface for a while now and after extensive testing with my new logitech headset(80 Euros in PC World) i have found that call quality has been much better and clearer with Skype.I know others have found it the other way round just wondering what your views on which you find the best.

(caveat: I work for Blue Face)

The argument probably shouldn't be Skype vs Blue Face but Skype vs X-Ten or whichever other softphone you happen to be using. We haven't written our own softphone at this stage so the only way to compare us to Skype would be at the network layer. Unfortunately the softphone will be the biggest cause of quality degradation when making a call from a PC so it will be hard to separate out the quality of the network.

If I recall correctly Skype uses the iLBC codec which has extremely low bandwidth requirements (15Kbps payloads) and therefore a high compression ratio which may or may not affect your perception of the call quality, personally I always notice iLBC to be a bit "tinny". At Blue Face, as with most other SIP based providers, we use the non-lossy G711 codec as default (64Kbps payloads) which means if your connection doesn't drop any packets and has no jitter you will get a perfect representation of the audio at the receiving end. We actually support iLBC as well but nobody has requested it yet.

Despite the argument about quality Skype is an ingenious piece of software and if you are only interested in VoIP for outgoing calls from a PC then in all honesty it is your best option. No other softphone I have seen can handle NAT as well or tunnel through https proxies, ie. let you make calls from work (although we have set up VPN tunnels a few times for the X-ten to achieve the same thing; the great thing about Skype is it does it all for you).

If on the other hand you are in a position where you can set up some hardware a SIP based provider will let you make better use of your bandwidth and usually result in a fairly noticeable improvement in call quality.

I hope there is enough factual information above that this won't be considered pimping .

Aaron

fatherdougalmag

we use the non-lossy G711 codec as default (64Kbps payloads) which means if your connection doesn't drop any packets and has no jitter you will get a perfect representation of the audio at the receiving end

Just FYI from reading this you might think that you'll receive perfect quality audio as if the person was standing next to you? I haven't been able to try PC to PC calls with other SIP parties on Blueface but maybe things are like this.

You may very well get a perfect representation of the audio at the receiving end but if it will then depend on how it leaves the remote party. My expertise is within ISDN (spent the week rewriting a wave audio driver for PRI E1/T1 adapters) but if you are talking with someone on the PSTN, 64kbps G.711 a/mu-law is just regular telephony audio. You can experience this yourself by running sndrec32 on Windows, opening a WAV file and saving it as an 8kHz, 8bit, mono file (click on the Change button on the Save As ... dialog). Play the audio back and it sounds like it's been played on the phone. I'm sure that you can probably achieve higher bitrates on broadband conversations but once a call has to go through PSTN it's going to receive this kind of treatment.

What piques my interest is who will win? Computers and their essence is all about standards. SIP is very much industry standard but Skype is in a world of its own making. It certainly broached the idea of true Internet telephony for Joe Bloggs but with Vonage setting up shop outside the U.S., I think that SIP will ultimately win and that Skype will probably be bought out for its customer base. Admittedly Skype is probably more technologially savvy but these features will probably end up in a future version of SIP or SIP applications will provide easy NAT traversal etc.

We live in interesting times. VoIP has really yet to hit Ireland. NTL have announced their intentions. So have Digiweb. Everybody's starting to learn about the world outside of Eircom with the likes of Euphony, UTV, BT Ireland. Everyone knows about the Internet now so VoIP is yet to come. I'll be wearing my Blueface rugby/South Fremantle jersey with pride. Partly because I like the cut of Blueface's jib but partly becayse I'm all for VoIP as being the competition and threat that this country's broadband infrastructure needs to offer services above and beyond Internet access. We're all upgraded to the hilt now, let's do something with all of those megabits!!

When I can drive home and send an SMS to pre-heat the oven to 170C I'll be happy to retire.

causal

fatherdougalmag wrote:

What piques my interest is who will win?

I think Skype will have to support SIP or die.
Skype used to say on their website that they may in future releases support SIP - but I can't find the reference now - either because it's gone or, er, I just can't find it.
They also used to say that they may in future support outound calls to the PSTN, and inbound calls from the PSTN - and they since delivered SkypeOut and SkypeIn.

What it boils down to is that the SIP standard(s) are supported and implemented by the telecoms industry; skype isn't.

causal

Gone West

Skype, for me works just perfect. I only have 56k, yet I can have perfect conversations through it. Whether I ring my friend on his Broadband down the street, or If I ring my parents landline in the USA (West coast). I can even surf the web with little effect on call quality.

Fionn

i used to use normal phone to ring the states and the line quality wasn't always good in fact sometimes the call might have to be terminated because of poor quality, so much for telecoms industry standards, then i started using Yahoo voice this was a hit and miss product sometimes it just didn't work! other times it was quite acceptable same with the voice features of msn netmeeting and a few others.
Then i used skype recently....and all i can say is wow!!! better than anything i've ever heard on a transatlantic line. I've not used blueface so can't comment on it.
For me at any rate Skype is the clearest in sound quality of anything else i've tried and it hasn't cost me anything extra

causal

FuzzyLogic wrote:

Skype, for me works just perfect. I only have 56k, yet I can have perfect conversations through it. Whether I ring my friend on his Broadband down the street, or If I ring my parents landline in the USA (West coast). I can even surf the web with little effect on call quality.

That sounds almost too good to be true.
According to the Skype Knowledgebase

How much bandwidth does Skype use while I'm in a call?

Skype automatically selects the best codec depending on the connection between yourself and the person you are calling. On average, Skype uses between 3-16 kilobytes/sec depending on bandwidth available for other party, network conditions in between, callers CPU performance, etc.

Let's assume ideal conditions: the minimum required 3kBps on a perfect 7kBps (56kbps) dialup leaves 4kBps for web surfing.
I'm not sure what QoS provisioning skype has - but assuming it hogs enough for minimum call quality (3kBps) then that leaves you with only 4kBps for surfing the web.

Then there's the issue of your call quality. So let's say you're skypeing your "friend on his Broadband down the street" - skype is using your whole 7kBps dialup. Then you start web surfing - now either you can't surf or skype reduces it's bandwidth requirement to (let's say) the minimum of 3kBps. That's less than half the initial bandwidth, but you reckon it has "little effect on call quality" which begs the question - what was that 4kBps being used for if not call quality, and how enjoyable is web surfing on 4kBps?

All of the above assumed totally ideal conditions on dialup speed, skype QoS, network performance, processor performance etc. - which is unreasonable to expect.

causal

causal

Fionn wrote:

i used to use normal phone to ring the states and the line quality wasn't always good in fact sometimes the call might have to be terminated because of poor quality, so much for telecoms industry standards

That's certainly not down to the telecoms industry standards (remember we're talking protocols).
It's most likely down to the poor standard of the equipment (cables, repeaters, etc. etc.) used by providers and by the subscriber (poor cabling int he home, cheap handsets etc.)

causal

medO

I use Skype from time to time and another VoIP provider (SIP) (not Blueface as it happens) for most of my calls.

While the sound quality is good to excellent on both services, I often find an unacceptable VoIP sound delay on mobile calls to Ireland and Britain. And on some landline calls to Ireland.

No probs with calls to USA, Continental Europe or Asia (apart from Thailand).

I'm using the same BB ISP and client kit on all calls. It smells to me as if one or two backstreet telcos are deliberately attempting to mess things up!

medO

paulm17781

I am using Blueface full time. When I was using the X-ten the call quality was pretty rubbish, sounded distant and tinny, being used with a cheap headset too. Once I bought my ATA people could no longer tell the difference.

Fionn

the OP was talking about comparing quality! i said that at times, in my experience skype compared quite favourably with normal transatlantic calls.

this of course is for pc to pc!

for the clarity and quality and cost (free) i think it's the best, haven't used the phone for calls to the states since!!


on a side note...industry standards are all very well but shouldn't they apply to equipment, cables, repeaters etc. used by providers and by subscribers handsets etc.
i'm talking standards here not protocols
i don't mind non-standard protocols either, things will always be non-standard at some point. It works i use it, if it dies off i'll move on thats the way things are!

JoyPad

Hi all,

Leaving quality aside, there are other issues that can be discussed in such a comparison. Here are my thoughts on this, please feel free to comment.

Skype is a peer-to-peer network, similar to its file sharing counterpart, Kazaa. Any node in this network can become a super-node, and the user has no ability to prevent this from happening. Hence, if you run Skype, it can generate network traffic even if you don't use it at all, just by passing around information for other people's instant messaging and voice calls.

Furthermore, all Skype communications with the login server (the only centralised portion of the Skype network) is fully encrypted, and there is no way of telling what information the Skype client passes to the login server. Call me paranoid, but I don't like a software running on my PC communicating with a third party stuff I don't know about. It could send my browser bookmarks, my MRU list, list of software installed on my computer, basically anything it pleases. It probably doesn't send any of that, but how can I tell?

Last, but not least, this whole Skype vs SIP discussion brings back memories of IM unification raised on the web a while back. Using the analogies to telcos, people have complained about the lack of IM systems inter-operability, whereas an ICQ client does not (and will not) communicate to Yahoo messenger, or AIM, or MSN messenger, or any other IM system. In telephony, it doesn't matter what POTS you're connected to, you can make and receive calls to any POTS subscriber, anywhere in the world. Not possible with IMs, and now, not possible for the PC-to-PC voice systems. A Skype client can only talk to other Skype client. I'd rather go with SIP, where I can call any other SIP client, anywhere on the Internet. And as SIP clients become more and more popular, more and more free calls will be possible.


Cheers,
JP

causal

Fionn wrote:

the OP was talking about comparing quality! i said that at times, in my experience skype compared quite favourably with normal transatlantic calls.

this of course is for pc to pc!

for the clarity and quality and cost (free) i think it's the best, haven't used the phone for calls to the states since!!

Aye, that's all fair enough .

on a side note...industry standards are all very well but shouldn't they apply to equipment, cables, repeaters etc. used by providers and by subscribers handsets etc.
i'm talking standards here not protocols

The protocols define the standard - but it's not up to the standards bodies (ITU, ANSI, etc.) to police telcos equipment. The protocols are fine - how well individual companies choose to implement them is their own business.

i don't mind non-standard protocols either, things will always be non-standard at some point.

That's not true. The telecoms industry know that things are better when protocols are standardised. Global communications are only possible when there are global standards. Currently we have a system of hacks to get the different protocols and equipment to talk to each other. There is huge activity in bringing together global telecoms standards - and it's all good

causal

Blaster99

I can't see Skype moving much beyond PC's or Pocket PC's. But if I were looking for a POTS replacement, I wouldn't expect my PC to be it. But I can't see voice being a killer app for long. Once speeds to go up, video will be the natural format and then you'll need a PC. And once you need a PC, who cares about SIP? There's a free video plugin with Skype now, by the way.

causal

I agree with JoyPads points.
imho there are other unsavoury things about Skype:

http://support.skype.com/index.php?_a=knowledgebase&_j=questiondetails&_i=398

Can I make SkypeOut calls to satelitte phones?

Unfortunately Skype does not support calling to satellite phones. These numbers are often considered "premium" or "special" numbers that Skype does not support.

Not a problem for most users - but significant as an indication of their mindset; and of their lonely position as a non-standard closed protocol in the big bad world of telecoms giants.

http://support.skype.com/index.php?_a=knowledgebase&_j=questiondetails&_i=35

What can I do when I experience bad sound quality?

The PSTN (public switched telephone network) isn't as reliable as Skype-to-Skype calling. PSTN calls rely on traditional phone networks, which may have fluctuations in capacity and quality of termination. Please try your call again after some time.

That's funny because I reckon a large percentage of skype users get their TCP/IP connection using the PSTN via dialup or DSL!!
It's also hughely ironic when you hear what they say about another skype non-feature:

http://support.skype.com/index.php?_a=knowledgebase&_j=questiondetails&_i=29

Can I call an emergency number (e.g. 112, 211, 999, 911)?

The current version of Skype software does not support calls to any emergency numbers or emergency services (e.g. 211, 911, 999 etc). To perform calls of this type please make sure to use a landline telephone or a cellular/mobile phone.

Ohh I see - the current version of skype doesn't support it - well I'll make my emergency call when the next version comes out...


http://www.voipnow.org/skype/

Skype Washes Hands Of E911

With the FCC's recent ruling on E911, European VoIP provider Skype claims that it should not be held as an emergency service to its customers. Skype's spokeswoman, Kelly Larabee claims that Skype is not a replacement to an existing telephone line and should be regarded as an "enhancement". Therefore, they should not be expected to provide E911 services in compliance to the FCC ruling. In other words, they don't want to pay to have the system installed for their 4 millions American clients and focus more time on their other 36 million worldwide. Let me illustrate this fact:

Larabee stated that, “there are ways Skype could enhance emergency services. For instance, text messages or e-mails could help persons in distress to communicate in some situations." Right. Like I'm just going to sit around and wait for a 911 technician to pick up their cell phone and read their TEXT MESSAGES. Is this woman serious? Do you know how long it would take to text, "People are coming to kill me!” under the circumstances?

American VoIP companies played the "enhancement" card, and they got regulated. Either step up to the plate, or take your European software elsewhere. According to TechWeb:

Vonage, the largest U.S.-based VoIP firm, has forged agreements with landline telephony operators like Verizon Communications and SBC Communications to insure that 911 emergency service is provided.

Read more: Skype Positions Itself as 'Enhancement' VoIP, Not Responsible For 911 Service

Skype are their own worst enemy, followed by their own subscribers, followed by SIP. imho skype reckoned they had a killer internet app - only snag was the revenue generation and (many of) the subcribers wishes are both off-internet i.e. PSTN, PLMN. And that's turned out to be a Pandora's box for skype. The more they resist the more niche they become.

Another unsavoury feature of Skype is it's use of ports 80 and 443 (http, https) - which is a complete hack (clever! but so was Judas, for awhile at least).

causal

Blaster99

Oh no, you mean the little toy I use to talk to people for free across the world can't do 911 calls? What a disaster.

causal

Blaster99 wrote:

I can't see Skype moving much beyond PC's or Pocket PC's. But if I were looking for a POTS replacement, I wouldn't expect my PC to be it. But I can't see voice being a killer app for long. Once speeds to go up, video will be the natural format and then you'll need a PC. And once you need a PC, who cares about SIP? There's a free video plugin with Skype now, by the way.

You're right about audiovideo replacing audio, of course, SIP supports video.
There are already several SIP videophones available like this one.

causal

causal

Blaster99 wrote:

Oh no, you mean the little toy I use to talk to people for free across the world can't do 911 calls? What a disaster.

That's fine for you for now - but the scope of this thread is somewhat broader than that.

causal