ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)

2010-01-05 10:08:56
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