IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [codec] A concrete proposal for requirements and testing

"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Sat, 09 April 2011 14:41 UTC

Return-Path: <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D00AA28C0D8 for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Apr 2011 07:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.404
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.404 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.195, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BLRSRxCLEGsO for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Apr 2011 07:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2A7D3A694D for <codec@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Apr 2011 07:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyb29 with SMTP id 29so4166672wyb.31 for <codec@ietf.org>; Sat, 09 Apr 2011 07:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:thread-index:content-language; bh=YdOMJvIiLQau0OgerojV+4XIML09rcEk4tmsecIe5Nw=; b=JFJqGmGJpPxLaTe2GRq/xjUy8jnit9SoRTYFs1yHzlmR1N8xQKtSeUMbQ/i54NZdW9 IR77DBXp5rwDNtUKz2EM737M455BGsO3XGxRkJiP+VAA8Vt4QTmB+UJn2zA1XAEEMzrC Z7VtHP7fiW+T2qyCnW95chNCM+GnOt2OyHVrY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:thread-index :content-language; b=fB0xMW8+AS9OeF+AYJ7a1D/UmsCaQMmDfKbzuFdiFWl0OBTJBq2aPUzFLgYqAi0qhU 0h/HWN/lBHHJUK6LMPFpkthOC1W2dLHdd3p5UH9WohiKSWlrWreBrQxFkI1epznEANPQ or85tusWqkBliqnflJz45SlT4joD509fPfSEg=
Received: by 10.216.59.81 with SMTP id r59mr3115700wec.40.1302360218822; Sat, 09 Apr 2011 07:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from windows8d787f9 (bzq-79-179-29-234.red.bezeqint.net [79.179.29.234]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t5sm1813186wes.33.2011.04.09.07.43.36 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 09 Apr 2011 07:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: 'Ron' <ron@debian.org>, codec@ietf.org
References: <BANLkTimN1VduZ9kR2Mgp_w7=p6V1srHBiQ@mail.gmail.com> <21200823.2625297.1302284060278.JavaMail.root@lu2-zimbra> <BLU0-SMTP11D0135F8FFEEEB308A1E9D0A70@phx.gbl> <4d9f7107.a7fed80a.542d.ffffa087@mx.google.com> <20110409030611.GG30415@audi.shelbyville.oz> <BANLkTinxSukUxhVO3c3mmtd4pDHYBqRY6w@mail.gmail.com> <4da00764.1407e30a.1423.ffffb78a@mx.google.com> <20110409095721.GH30415@audi.shelbyville.oz> <4da04588.cac3e30a.1c01.ffffc261@mx.google.com> <20110409123852.GI30415@audi.shelbyville.oz>
In-Reply-To: <20110409123852.GI30415@audi.shelbyville.oz>
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2011 17:42:59 +0300
Message-ID: <4da0709a.0504d90a.5dd9.ffffb602@mx.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Acv2sx8CZ4k1zZKdTYq2N/R6Y4O01QAESqcA
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [codec] A concrete proposal for requirements and testing
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec>
List-Post: <mailto:codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2011 14:41:54 -0000

Jean Marc,
G.722.1 and G.722.1C were mentioned as royalty free codecs. Is OPUS one?
Roni

> -----Original Message-----
> From: codec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Ron
> Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2011 3:39 PM
> To: codec@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [codec] A concrete proposal for requirements and testing
> 
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 02:39:13PM +0300, Roni Even wrote:
> > Hi,
> > There are license free codecs like G.722.1 and G.722.1C. I am not
> sure what
> > is the status of G.719
> 
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
> 
>  5) The wideband test showed that Opus at 19.85 kb/s had higher quality
> than
>     G.722.1 at 24 kb/s. Does anyone disagree that this is sufficient to
> meet
>     the Sec 4.2 requirement of out-performing G.722.1?
> 
>  7) The fullband test showed that Opus at 32 kb/s had higher quality
> than G.719
>     at 32 kb/s. Does anyone disagree that this is sufficient to meet
> the Sec 4.2
>     requirement of out-performing G.722.1C, considering that G.719 has
> already
>     been shown to out-perform G.722.1C
> 
> Did I miss a reasoned argument that disagreed with this?  Or can we
> consider
> that tested?  Even if they were comparable to Opus in that very narrow
> band
> they still cannot nearly compete with it across its full range.
> 
> Is anyone seriously prepared to stake their reputation on nominating
> them
> as candidate codecs to replace Opus here ;?
> 
> > As for telepresence HE-AAC is not the codec currently in use so
> comparing to
> > it does not qualify as getting better quality
> 
> Well it's a little hard for me to offer you a comparison to a codec you
> won't
> name ;)  But the question remains, what exactly about telepresence do
> you think
> we fail at?  So far as I can see we have that fairly amply covered, no?
> 
> Cheers,
> Ron
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> codec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email