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

[stephen botzko <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ron

I agree there's been discussion about existing codecs, and most of it has
been helpful and constructive.

But until the detailed requirements have been determined, I don't think it
is very fruitful to continue it.

IMHO we'll need those details to be more precisely stated (and agreed to) in
order to take this to the next level.  It'd be most efficient to do the
formal assessment only once.

Stephen Botzko
Polycom


On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Ron <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 02:44:36PM +0100,
> [e-mail] wrote:
> > In line as well : The first stage of the work has not been done yet : the
> > detailed technical requirements have not been defined and agreed yet, the
> > second stage of the work with other SDOs to analyse if already exiting
> codecs
> > meet these requirements is not done and yet the Charter on the basis of
> which
> > this WG could be launched is formulated as if the conclusion resulting
> from
> > this 2 stages was known and obvious : no existing codec is suitable and
> so a
> > new codec is needed
> >
> > so, again : only these first 2 steps (requirement definition and standard
> > analysis) are, at this stage, relevant to start a WG since the next steps
> > depend on the conclusion of this work.
> >
> > for instance , there could be some middle way between developping a new
> codec
> > and reusing an existing standard : it could be much more efficient to
> simply
> > extend/adapt an existing standard and, to achieve this, it would be
> better to
> > rely on the SDO that have standardized this codec.
>
> Potential candidate codecs have been discussed since the very first BoF,
> and surely before.  We have plenty of representatives from other SDOs
> present in the group, so my question is, if such codecs exist, then surely
> they should be put up, if not as contenders, then as baseline measures of
> best practice in some matter or another.  Why hasn't that happened?
>
> With the exception of a few "G.711 should be enough for anyone" jokes,
> I haven't seen anyone present a "this can already do what you want" codec
> that the group hasn't responded with "we can (already) do better than
> that".
>
> If there are other codecs that we should have to measure up against, then
> indeed I'd warmly welcome other SDOs to make their best suggestions soon,
> for consideration during the next stage of work.  Anything you think puts
> one of the existing candidates to shame in some aspect or another, would
> certainly be a valuable and practical measuring stick we can use.
>
> I'm pretty sure a lot of people have already done many of these
> measurements
> for themselves.  We just need to whittle that down to the ones that give us
> useful bars to raise.  Which ones are we missing still?
>
> Cheers,
> Ron
>
>
>