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

Xavier Marjou <xavier.marjou@orange.com> Wed, 13 March 2013 15:17 UTC

Return-Path: <xavier.marjou@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 989C521F8E65 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:17:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uYxeNerSe2E4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:17:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x234.google.com (mail-la0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C28CC21F8E2D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f52.google.com with SMTP id fs12so1273348lab.11 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Fh9FH/P2aYX3tJWO8yZ9jb3v9H+898JeOzI8xW7mkLw=; b=LKGHFfsjjyCEN0XEAySDXBXTigIWB/klSegBLyKTs3ozwrC5QZ6yw6zAKzqFPXsa74 McTesqZqlwmh2wLJFXUOCD/FNu0e1MmmMTVacc4u2ek9JYCrneplsEuG4EYj6NgFfMtd jdQIk4JzoMUI+HCv7gu1R0YQq5EOd7ioMVx/D0tdvGnZsq057C0tnT+g2lm8hf9mzruc zwsVyBmPjQO3LfZ4OnWzn79hV3H4VKmbxWIS2kvnQ27totA3PB1nT243TuhOYKt8F446 0ClUwjRjxxNNvMvDSzgBrrgpxmmG/CJFu6JJNqos+YeZZ8d1qXRO6wOxXaLuLjDvhQ06 co5A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.109.112 with SMTP id hr16mr18047890lab.38.1363187864583; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: xavier.marjou@gmail.com
Received: by 10.114.7.167 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20130313142732.GE12022@audi.shelbyville.oz>
References: <E8F5F2C7B2623641BD9ABF0B622D726D0F68869E@xmb-rcd-x11.cisco.com> <CA+9kkMA7x18x3rD9PoPx-rA+4uz7ome3LjQ7sOWHDptz0zJX6g@mail.gmail.com> <CAErhfrx24SR5zwH3oHQi_PhFkfQjCmbMuatwEw2kjJ184MiUpw@mail.gmail.com> <20130313142732.GE12022@audi.shelbyville.oz>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:17:44 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Q8AW9iSDuDqfZf7MHS3OWZHz-uo
Message-ID: <CAErhfrwxd_rhXwMiovgknJSEGQJT4=OXhpGUsyNWAvNuNdseyQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Xavier Marjou <xavier.marjou@orange.com>
To: Ron <ron@debian.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec54eea706f118c04d7cfe84d
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:17:46 -0000

WebRTC standard must do the best to avoid transcoding when communications
happen towards "legacy" devices.

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 ;-)



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 ?
>
>