Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wideband Audio Codec WG

stephen botzko <stephen.botzko@gmail.com> Tue, 02 June 2009 18:32 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.botzko@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A51C28C244; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 11:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.013
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.013 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.585, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 JCnw-FOFW+fr; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 11:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f216.google.com (mail-fx0-f216.google.com [209.85.220.216]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95C7428C1FF; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 11:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm12 with SMTP id 12so6722635fxm.37 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 11:32:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=QnFAfUB+X/eRw6Ucnc7oCRFiXFCUvjl/ccmz654dBQQ=; b=pkgsx941sSrPozCkc79AE/rIhdikwaALrV4Rt4kl8lbgf8qRFMKJJWmf+oBITb7cHJ 1sK+w8/aCGCl8Fhz8NQJCcXlG1LZ9x59qa+s7q2fRYdY9zjpj7ura2TkKF6htndjVvIl QVheE97jcpLPBYncUOn1dhYMJu/1biM2swgbc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=k7M7NnNFz3OwV3JmDKIJvmyJ8tnL4mDgyGbEAWwwnpUv2WNwFsJMKjaK1T+9L5D7et KMacVl5sqX0LfoWbQyte6RBEDtSggXdertCska0kqxaw/aeXVKa+j9FlEe5b/pFaBULn LShesdIKoR+Ye8zY64qGFs2+VjcBGPpOH66QY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.102.228.19 with SMTP id a19mr30502muh.10.1243967542188; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 11:32:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2B4B0335-916C-4CD4-9E40-63BBA6B1DF8B@cs.columbia.edu>
References: <AA5A65FC22B6F145830AC0EAC7586A6C04BF8E77@mail-srv.spiritcorp.com> <00a401c9e388$b25c2350$171469f0$%roni@huawei.com> <4A2541B9.2000805@octasic.com> <00d501c9e39a$dcbbbe50$96333af0$%roni@huawei.com> <D1611ACB-4739-4A65-94F0-403FC24CDC43@cs.columbia.edu> <6e9223710906021031i31e024dam5673ca9608017d73@mail.gmail.com> <2B4B0335-916C-4CD4-9E40-63BBA6B1DF8B@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:32:21 -0400
Message-ID: <6e9223710906021132wa2d5c5cg4b095fd3e936e575@mail.gmail.com>
From: stephen botzko <stephen.botzko@gmail.com>
To: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016363ba72076dbd1046b61c3d5"
Cc: dispatch@ietf.org, avt@ietf.org, Roni Even <Even.roni@huawei.com>, hsinnrei@adobe.com, Slava Borilin <Borilin@spiritdsp.com>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wideband Audio Codec WG
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 18:32:27 -0000

Of course there are multiple dimensions in the engineering - including
complexity, delay, bitrate, audio bandwidth, and fidelity.

I'm not saying there is a "best" codec, let alone that the IETF should
attempt to build it.

But I think any codec standardized by IETF should be competitive, and
hopefully would have some advantage (not just price) over other available
codecs for its stated application(s).

Steve B.

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>wrote:

>
> On Jun 2, 2009, at 1:31 PM, stephen botzko wrote:
>
>  >>> - the quality of the codec may not be competitive
>>
>> I think its very important that the codec quality be competitive.  People
>> expect excellence from IETF standards  Standardizing non-competitive codecs
>> because they are cheap does not seem to be a good choce.
>>
>
> This is an engineering trade-off. Ogg Vorbis is probably not the "best"
> codec out there, but fills a need.
>