Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB needs an Internet Codec

On 12-08-30 08:38 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> If the codecs supported by both endpoints do not supply the
> characteristics needed for the communication, then you will get
> interoperability failure.
> 
> If I want more bandwidth or quality than OPUS supplies, then I will
> also get interoperability failure.

Care to provide an example of use case to which Opus does not scale? It
starts from about 6 kb/s, which is certainly low enough (and far less
than the RTP overhead anyway). From there, it can scale to 512 kb/s
stereo, which is more than twice as much as the highest bitrate at which
anyone was ever able to ABX the coded audio against the original.
There's also multi-channel (>2) mappings if needed. Well, we don't cover
dogs, but I think I can live with that.

	Jean-Marc

> Keith
> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org
>> [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Harald Alvestrand 
>> Sent: 30 August 2012 11:56 To: rtcweb@ietf.org Subject: Re:
>> [rtcweb] RTCWEB needs an Internet Codec
>> 
>> The counterpoint is that having G.711 as the only MTI means that
>> you get interoperability failure for any application in which G.711
>> sound quality is not acceptable.
>> 
>> This includes all applications involving music.
>> 
>> On 08/29/2012 06:30 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
>>> At 12:13 AM -0400 8/29/12, Roman Shpount wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I would argue G.711 should be the MTI codec. The rest can be
>>>> left up to browser implementers.
>>> 
>>> I agree.
>>> 
>>>> We can argue all we want, but the best royalty free low
>>>> bitrate codec available will be the one everybody supports.
>>> 
>>> Very good point, and why we should mandate only one audio codec.
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing
>> list rtcweb@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list 
> rtcweb@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 