Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB needs an Internet Codec

Not that I have anything against Opus, but what exactly makes Opus an
internet codec? What is internet codec anyway? Makes this all kind of a
meaningless argument.

I would argue that for my broadband internet connection G.722 is a perfect
internet codec. I do not care about bandwidth savings of Opus, and quality
wise, for the voice conversation, I cannot hear any difference.

I would argue G.711 should be the MTI codec. The rest can be left up to
browser implementers. We can argue all we want, but the best royalty free
low bitrate codec available will be the one everybody supports. We can
force it to be Opus, but even if we don't, it will still be Opus on its
merit alone. G.722 will probably end up being supported as well, since it
is free, pretty good quality, and easy to implement.

P.S. Not that I am arguing for it, I am surprised no one made a case for
iSAC, since it is also royalty free, low bit rate, and very high quality.
It is event named "internet Speech Audio Codec".
_____________
Roman Shpount

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Alan Johnston
<alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>wrote:

> The RTCWEB effort needs an Internet codec.  This is why Opus is the
> right choice.  RTCWEB also needs one codec for backwards compatibility
> with the VoIP world.  This is why G.711 is also the right choice.
>
> Any G.mumble codec is NOT an Internet codec and will not have the same
> performance on the Internet as one that was designed for the Internet!
>  If anyone doesn't understand what that means, go back and examine the
> CODEC Working Group archives to get educated.
>
> If someone wants another codec instead of Opus, then they need to
> propose another Internet codec.  Otherwise, we are not serving the
> Internet.
>
> - Alan -
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>