Forum

Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    8

    Exclamation TS3 vs TS2 Bandwith Consumption (lag)

    I just made the experince that TS3 seems to use a lot more bandwith than TS2. This comes especially awkward when playing games on a low bandwith connection:
    One of my friends has such a low bandwith connection (DSL upstream: 71 kibit/s ~9 kByte/s). He never had any problems playing BF2 with TS2. The "Speex 7.2 kbit" Codec from TS2 we are using for our game channel does an excellet job in means of sound quality and low bandwith consumption /acceptable ping.

    With TS3 the situation is completly different. Speex 8 kHz Level 1 has an unacceptable sound quality and still uses about 3.8 kByte/s which is nearly half of his upstream bandwith. But with Speex 16 kHz the bandwith consumption causes an extrem lag. And IMHO the sound quality is still not so good as the Speex 7.2 kbit from TS2, which uses only around 700 bytes/s (accoring to the connection info).

    To make a long story short: I am not quite sure why the Speex 7.2 kbit Codec from TS2 only claims around 700 bytes/s and the lowest Codec from TS3 still uses 3800 byte/s (displayed as 3.8 KiB/s (1)) with poorer sound quality.

    Well, I hope that I got the units right. Because I canīt belive that TS3 does things different than TS2. Why canīt we find a Codec in TS3 that has the same sound quality and causes no lag, like in TS2?


    (1) Wiki: 1 kibibyte is 1024bytes, unit symbol "KiB"

  2. #2
    Join Date
    December 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,354
    If I remember correctly, I read an official post in December, that this higher bandwidth is because of the lower latency. Later in the beta there is may be another codec with the TS2 latency but with better quality, that needs less bandwidth.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    December 2009
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Flow_ View Post
    Why canīt we find a Codec in TS3 that has the same sound quality and causes no lag, like in TS2?
    Because it's still a beta. I've read that the next round of improvements will about performance enhancements.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    8
    Ok, I just found the related post. Seems like this is a known problem.

    I wounder if this "high latency codec" (IMHO a bad description, I would prefer "low bandwith", as they voice communication has then a high latency, but the gameplay gets a low latency) would be implemented in the next release?
    It would be nice if this could be a client side option. So that only clients with a low bandwith connection could enable the "low bandwith" codec, for the benefit of a lower in-game ping, but a higher voice latency, while all others wouldnīt be directly affected. (Killerfeature ? )

  5. #5
    Join Date
    December 2004
    Location
    RF
    Posts
    3,006
    Ok, two things to consider.
    1. TS3 sending more voice packets per second, increasing bandwidth directly.
    2. TS3 encoding packets, which TS2 didn't. It increasing bandwidth usage even further.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    April 2005
    Location
    US
    Posts
    57
    I'm hopeful the reason for the latest gap in beta releases is that they are working on the next set of 'low bandwith' codec's..

    Only time will tell. My father will benifit from this as his only option for internet is a Sprint 3G Aircard. upload speeds suck on 3G cards. he's garbled and breaks up alot.

    No issue in vent :/ course, they're using a more bandwith friendly codec.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    December 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    745
    Quote Originally Posted by Solamar View Post
    No issue in vent :/ course, they're using a more bandwith friendly codec.
    hey if you want a voice client that doesn't have ANY features and hasn't been updated since 2005(?) then vent is for you!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    April 2005
    Location
    US
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by pillbox1234567 View Post
    hey if you want a voice client that doesn't have ANY features and hasn't been updated since 2005(?) then vent is for you!
    A voice client can be updated every 10 minutes and have 1000's of more features, but if it doesn't provide the primary service it's designed around (voice chat) to those you need to communicate to, then all those 'latest' features and updates don't mean pittly.

    Until it's more reliable; vent's being maintained as a primary vchat for us.. Not really a surprise, TS3 is still beta, but I'm hopeful they will address the issues with voice quality, reliability, etc. and we'll continue to try and test and give feedback in hopes of a better product..

    Not even sure why you're being defensive.. They are competing products that have been and will likely continue to be compared. Especially on the quality and reliability of their voice communication abilities.

    For our little group, this is where TS3 must shine the most to pull us perminatly away from Vent. I think the best way to do that is to continue to push the devs of TS3 during beta on that front. Adversity and competition does tend to breed better products for the consumer after all.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    December 2004
    Location
    RF
    Posts
    3,006
    Speaking of which, Ventrilo is much more clearer and understandable, than TS3, and much more feature-rich, than TS2.
    The only problem is... price...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    December 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,354
    Quote Originally Posted by ANR Daemon View Post
    Speaking of which, Ventrilo is much more clearer and understandable, than TS3, and much more feature-rich, than TS2.
    The only problem is... price...
    Our clan tested Ventrilo two years ago, I can't confirm that. The only problem on TS3 for some of us is the big bandwidth needed to use a better quality (since slower DSL lines in Germany only provide 9 kByte / sec upload, which makes TS3 unusable while gaming, even at quality level 4).

    But quality levels 4+ on Speex 16kHz sounds better than on TS2 and Speex 32 kHz Quality 7+ wins every competition I think.

    Would be nice if a client can activate compression of the voice data, if this would help here.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    December 2004
    Location
    RF
    Posts
    3,006
    Voice data is compressed already, don't make me cry... or laugh...
    I'd prefer to see it not encrypting traffic optionally. That's a bandwidth increase by itself, over the higher base bandwidth consumption of TS3, along with CPU usage overhead.
    And you absolutely don't need best quality codec, just train yourself to articulate your words and not whisper to the mic.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    December 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,354
    Quote Originally Posted by ANR Daemon View Post
    And you absolutely don't need best quality codec, just train yourself to articulate your words and not whisper to the mic.
    I know, we use Speex 16 kHz at Quality 4 which sounds good for me. But this quality still needs to much bandwidth for slow DSL connections in Germany while online gaming.

    But I hope that this problem will solve itself if Germany gets better DSL lines outside of cities soon.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    September 2007
    Location
    Liverpool, England
    Posts
    14
    To be honest the OP is spot on & im glad someone else is pointing this out, Im sick of being flamed by TS3
    users & the fanboi's in regards to TS2 vs TS3 sound quality & bandwidth, it is especially annoying that most
    of these people i debate with in regard to the TS3 quality have crappy soundcards & mics, & a lack of sound
    engineering knowledge so it makes me laugh.
    TS3 makes the it better for the cheapskates, but anyone running a quality setup may differ in opinion.

    I host one of each & the sound quality of TS2 is far smoother & realistic than TS3, i have users from all
    over europe in my TS but there are around 12 users i know in 'real life' since i was a kid, i speak to them
    regularly face to face as well as in TS, & i'll tell you this much, they all sound perfect in TS2 as they do in
    'real life' but in TS3 they sound wrong, it makes my step bro sound camp/gay.

    TS2 over the years could of done with a few more settings for both client & server, but for sound quality
    & bandwidth TS2 wins hands down (for now) TS3 makes me puke.

    TS3 server side is nowhere near as straight forward to set up either (oh & thanks for the player cap)

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion & preference but as a TS fan, TS3 took too long & after all this time
    they have a lesser platform for bandwidth & sound quality with a load of pointless features bundled in.

    __________________________________________________ _______________________________________

    *Note*
    Anyone who wishes to troll me, fine, but before you do, i'll tell you this much...

    I have been hosting a TS2 server for 8yrs & a TS3 since release.
    I have an X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Pro Series soundcard & M-Audio soundcard.
    I use Sennheiser headsets & studio monitors.
    I have a small home studio as i work with music production & i have a good ear for clarity.

    Based on all this im speaking with some experience & im using high end gear, im not saying im
    right & everyone else is wrong, nor am i trying to force my opinion on anyone (each to their own).

    What im saying that i have a basis of fact & experience to back up my claims of a lesser plaform with the
    need for some changes to both the bandwidth & quality (as well as feature changes) sooner rather than later!
    Last edited by forze; June 3rd, 2011 at 09:25 AM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    July 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,192
    Thanks for unearthing a old thread concerning a now fixed issue . Back when this thread was made, we did not have the option to send voice data with less than 50 packets per second. Some (slow) connections had problems with this (even if the codec was regulated to not eat so much bandwidth), and this resulted in bad quality. Since many months now, you can configure the codec latency factor which allows you to adjust how many packets per second are sent. Just use the "smart codec slider", it will do this automatically . If you have some problem with TS3, please make a new thread as this thread is about a solved problem.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. [On Todo] High power consumption
    By lronicks in forum macOS
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 17th, 2015, 10:18 AM
  2. Controlling bandwitch consumption
    By Morfi in forum Server Support
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 9th, 2011, 02:43 AM
  3. Beta 21 Windows 7 High CPU Consumption
    By Mightymod in forum Windows
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: June 6th, 2010, 09:24 PM
  4. consumption of network bandwidth ?
    By delsongf in forum Linux / FreeBSD
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 20th, 2010, 03:25 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •