Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01

[Ron <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:17:44AM -0400, Xavier Marjou wrote:
> WebRTC standard must do the best to avoid transcoding when communications
> happen towards "legacy" devices.

That's a pretty general and well known principle that doesn't need mandating
specially for WebRTC or is in any way unique to it.

So maybe the "legacy" devices should just add Opus support then :)

It's not like 4 billion of the 6 billion aren't less than 2 years old, or
are not firmware upgradeable ...

And it's not like (the many) people who are jailbreaking them aren't doing
that for themselves already ...


> Another way to illustrate that is an analogy with human languages: suppose
> there are two French native speakers and they have to speak English to talk
> with each other: this results in additional efforts, decreased quality of
> conversation, additional delays... all these details are significant for
> the quality of the communication.
> 
> (of course there are some exceptions in my analogy: there exists French
> native speakers who can also speak English fluently, in particular some
> Quebecois folks on the list ;-)

Right, and the French and English they speak today isn't the same French
and English they spoke in mediaevil times :)

We could equally consider this an incentive for the legacy device makers
to move forward.  That seems like a much better outcome for everyone
than trying to drag the new format backward would bring.

 Doesn't it?
 Ron


> Are you aware of the listening tests presented to the CODEC WG?
> >
> > In particular the ones that show Opus->AMR and AMR->Opus is not
> > significantly
> > worse than the intrinsic quality degradation suffered by using AMR alone?
> >
> > Or that Opus->G.711->AMR is actually better than AMR->G.711->AMR ?