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

[Steve Underwood <[e-mail]>]

On 01/05/2010 10:32 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:
> Just as an amusing side bar to the discussion ..you all know that any
> wideband codec kills fax don’t you?
>    
Not more or less so than narrow band codecs. 48k sample per second 24 
bit linear PCM works just fine for FAX, while more narrow band codecs 
corrupt it. :-)
>>   -----Original Message-----
>>   From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>>   Of Arnt Gulbrandsen
>>   Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 5:16 AM
>>   To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>   Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker; Mans Nilsson; Patrik Fältström;
>>   [e-mail]
>>   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
>>      
Steve