Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended Audio Codecs

[Gunnar Hellström <[e-mail]>]

There is an accessibility side of this as well.

Wide band audio can make it much easier for persons with hearing 
impairments to use voice communication over distance.
Therefore both US and European draft regulation or draft standards for 
support of regulation requires wide band audio wherever you have voice 
communication. And these drafts point at G.722 as the common codec at 
least to assure interoperability with wide-band audio between providers.
These draft regulations aim at public procurement and at marketing of 
electronic communication products and services.

Therefore, it seems logical to include G.722 in a codec recommendation 
document.

Gunnar


On 2012-12-22 18:12, Adam Roach wrote:
> Recommendations or *normative* recommendations?
>
> I think the former is a very good idea. The latter,  not so much.
>
> /a
>
> On Dec 22, 2012, at 7:17, "Hutton, Andrew" 
> <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Roman's comments below.
>>
>> So +1 for providing some recommendations on additional audio codec's 
>> for RTCWEB.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> *From:*[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
>> [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Roman Shpount
>> *Sent:* 21 December 2012 21:43
>> *To:* Adam Roach
>> *Cc:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting 
>> Recommended Audio Codecs
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Adam Roach <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>     What I think would be beneficial would be a section documenting
>>     codecs in widespread use today, where they're used, and what is
>>     gained by including them in WebRTC implementations (mostly
>>     transcoder-free interop with those other implementations).
>>     Documenting that AMR is used in 3GPP VoIP networks would allow
>>     implementors to make an educated decision about the benefit of
>>     including that codec. A similar mention that many modern VoIP
>>     phones support G.722 and/or AAC-LD would provide similar guidance.
>>
>> In reality very few phones support AAC-LD.
>>
>> For me the major concern is support for G.722. There is no reason not 
>> to support it. None. It is free, it is efficient, and it sounds 
>> better then G.711 any day of the week. It was not made an MTI for 
>> political reasons to promote OPUS. I think it deserves a SHOULD in 
>> the standard.
>>
>> As far  as AMR and AMR-WB are concerned, they should be implemented 
>> if your platform provides it. I, personally, would never pay a 
>> license fee for these codecs, but if implementing a browser on a cell 
>> phone where these codecs are present, I would make an extra effort to 
>> support them. So, these codecs probably do not deserve a SHOULD, but 
>> some guidance to implementers is probably required.
>>
>> _____________
>> Roman Shpount
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb