Catering to the backwards compatibility needs of qam v.34bis doesn't
seem like a terribly high priority application for a wideband voice
codec... Your user agent can just use g.711 for that application.
Richard Shockey wrote:
Just as an amusing side bar to the discussion ..you all know that any
wideband codec kills fax don’t you?
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf
Of Arnt Gulbrandsen
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 5:16 AM
To: codec(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker; Mans Nilsson; Patrik Fältström;
kre(_at_)munnari(_dot_)OZ(_dot_)AU
Subject: Re: WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
Mans Nilsson writes:
> But we are not running out of proposals for codecs to adapt. Both
CELT
> and SILK seem reasonable.
Speaking for me as a user, MP3 and AAC are at least worthy of
consideration. Someone said on this list that they waste bandwidth,
but
VoIP's main problem for me as a user is low speech quality, not
unacceptable traffic. I hear fine voice quality on 128kbps mp3 radio
streams and really fine on 176kbps ogg; I'd like to have that for
phone
calls.
rnt
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf