Re: [codec] #1: Application: 2.1. Point to point calls supporting transcoding?

All valid considerations.

G.711 and G.729 are very commonly used in today's enterprise VOIP
deployments.

In the enterprise video conferencing market, G.722, G.722.1 (wideband and
superwideband), G.719, and AAC-LD are in common use.

I think it is likely that if G.729/CODEC tandems well, G.711/CODEC would
also.  Just to point out that we do not necessarily need to test every
combination commonly used.

As an aside, at some point we will need to decide exactly how important the
music/entertainment application is.  Many going-forward audio codecs for
entertainment scale up to lossless. Personally I think the most important
use is conversational speech, and I see little need for yet another music
codec.

Stephen Botzko

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Christian Hoene <hoene@uni-tuebingen.de>wrote:

>  Hi,
>
>
>
> depending on the use case, the second codec might vary.
>
>
>
> 1)      For example, if bandwidth is plenty and music can be streamed, MP3
> might be the source.
>
> 2)      In case of calling a cellular phone, AMR-NB or GSM-EFR might be
> transcoding partner.
>
> 3)      Or if mobile HD voice is deployed as announced  (
> http://www.orange.com/en_EN/press/press_releases/cp100214en.jsp ) G.722.2
> (AMR-WB) shall be considered.
>
> 4)      CAT-iq and many VoIP phones use G.722.
>
> 5)      ISDN and PSTN gateways still require G.711?
>
>
>
> In case of G.718, use cases 3) and 4) are considered.
>
>
>
> Shall the transcoding tests done via subjective (MUSHRA, MOS-LQS) or
> objective (PEAQ, PESQ, …) methods?
>
>
>
> With best regards,
>
>  Christian
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dr.-Ing. Christian Hoene
>
> Interactive Communication Systems (ICS), University of Tübingen
>
> Sand 13, 72076 Tübingen, Germany, Phone +49 7071 2970532
> http://www.net.uni-tuebingen.de/
>
>
>
> *From**:* stephen botzko [mailto:stephen.botzko@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 03, 2010 12:54 PM
>
> *To:* trac@localhost.amsl.com
> *Cc:* hoene@uni-tuebingen.de; codec@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [codec] #1: Application: 2.1. Point to point calls
> supporting transcoding?
>
>
>
> I personally believe testing tandem operation is a MUST, since devices
> using this CODEC will certainly connect into networks where it is not
> supported.  The idea below that this will "just work" with every ITU codec
> is incorrect..
>
> In addition, tandem operation occurs in virtually all conference bridges
> (including back-to-back encode/decode with CODEC itself).  So surely
> self-tandeming has to be tested anyway.  (Though of course is is common for
> devices in the same conference to be using different codecs).
>
> I do not favor just copying the tandem requirements from some other codec's
> test plan - unless we are sure that it is in essentially the same ecosystem
> as ours.  Ideally the community would identify common use cases, and the
> test cases would be derived from those cases.
>
> Stephen Botzko
>
> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 1:39 AM, codec issue tracker <trac@tools.ietf.org>
> wrote:
>
> #1: Application: 2.1.  Point to point calls supporting transcoding?
>
> ------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
>  Reporter:  hoene@…                 |       Owner:
>     Type:  enhancement             |      Status:  new
>  Priority:  major                   |   Milestone:
> Component:  requirements            |     Version:
>  Severity:  Active WG Document      |    Keywords:
>
> ------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
>
> Comment(by hoene@…):
>
>  No consensus either until now. Again two opinions:
>
>  a) "To have similar requirements as G.718 and to consider at least cross
>
>  tandeming conditions with G722.2@12.65 in the characterization phase."
>
>  b) "I think that transcoding must be an explicit non-goal for this codec."
>
>  "Sorry, but I still do not understand the need for this testing.  In a
>  cell network to VoIP topology, the codec selected must be an ITU codec
>  which we already know are working fine for transcoding.  In a VoIP to VoIP
>  topology the codec selected is the one defined by this WG and by
>  definition no transcoding is needed.  And that's it, no test needed,
>  because nobody will use it this way."
>
>  Again, I would suggest to look for volunteers who want to make the
>  subjective tests with G.722.2 and CODEC.
>
> --
> Ticket URL: <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/codec/trac/ticket/1#comment:1>
>
> codec <http://tools.ietf.org/codec/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> codec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>
>
>