Re: [rtcweb] Should we also make G.722 a mandatory to implement codec?

Roman Shpount <> Wed, 01 August 2012 15:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A17FF21F8905 for <>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 08:24:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.85
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.85 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.126, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4BZyyWpEB3ZB for <>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 08:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 931A321F8904 for <>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 08:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbbjt11 with SMTP id jt11so1286490pbb.31 for <>; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 08:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=0swnYvJuT0tI+rBl1gR1BD2nY7I7JkwRQAUgLBMtJlM=; b=n8lbs74w8qAxULm+BQmcoIPwcP4lB7LeGbEyTPakBPNnBFzJvsaYlXVG4Vcp09vpKK hYTth+PVKVTRD+RDkfE80xnGddF45jlxBMbpIqTNKTdraGJ8jUZWWobksg7ni4b62eJa OhRGX999xVZEIBe7m5oA9hZ960buYL3HNdO850mAB29ZggkkP9Mn3YnHLpceUMrDGv9A gco4waD7LShswVju/gD7MrGSHQ7Mhm51rupsg7/SpABY850eQGoc93RyqKuonBSd7wHN s7xc4giYhN5ibxjiMGM6f4ua56JWAMNSlcCrwOTbvvwUkxTUwVGzAmF4wHkre8pNwY1V fFtQ==
Received: by with SMTP id up12mr52709036pbc.79.1343834657202; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 08:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPS id rz10sm2782715pbc.32.2012. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 01 Aug 2012 08:24:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbbjt11 with SMTP id jt11so1286460pbb.31 for <>; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 08:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id ox4mr52573893pbc.87.1343834655510; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 08:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 08:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 11:24:15 -0400
Message-ID: <>
From: Roman Shpount <>
To: Tim Panton <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff245df474fdf04c635e3c8
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnRX3WdFDAB8fcY7KQS9LJ4PQd+gA7bvdOjDFl833e+PlXlV03FXV0HGudcbuZoMmetCg8d
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Should we also make G.722 a mandatory to implement codec?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:24:18 -0000

I personally think it would be a mistake not to require G.711 and G.722.
Even though OPUS can be better under some circumstances, it is much more
expensive to encode, has no deployed base, and might proof to be patent

The CPU resources to encode or transcode to OPUS are several orders of
magnitude more then for G.711 and G.722. If we need to communicate with
legacy equipment, the cost to transcode from OPUS to G.711 or G.722 might
be prohibitive. Also, if we need to transcode to other low bitrate codecs,
such as AMR, it would require half the resources to transcode between G.722
and AMR vs OPUS and AMR.

Even though OPUS is supposed to be an unencumbered codec, it is not
unfeasible for some party to step forward and claim intellectual property
rigts that OPUS is using. In this case we might have no recourse but to pay
royalties. G.711 and G.722 are guaranteed not to be encumbered in any way
since they been in use long enough for any IP claims to expire.

Finally, OPUS is still in a draft phase, so there is no or little
deployment experience with it. We might still discover things that will
negatively affect it in some way. G.711 and G.722 are very widely deployed
and all the issues related to it are well known. In a lot of cases they are
simply good enough.

P.S. This is in no way an argument against OPUS. I think we should make it
mandatory and hope for the best, but I think we should also have easy to
implement, widely deployed, unencumbered codecs supported as well.
Roman Shpount

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Tim Panton <> wrote:

> I (personally) am against making g711 or g722 MTI audio codecs. There are
> network environments where they will behave significantly worse than opus
> (in silk mode). Neither codec will adapt to variable available bandwidth or
> cope well with packet loss -as seen on the edge of wifi networks and on 3G
> networks .
> We should not be encouraging the use of legacy codecs by making them MTI.
> When I mentioned H261 as a compromise MTI video codec, I was told that
> better codecs existed and that we should adopt them. Same goes for audio.
> Tim.
> Sent from my iPhone
> On 30 Jul 2012, at 20:48, "Kevin P. Fleming" <> wrote:
> > On 07/30/2012 12:21 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
> >> Should we consider adding G.722 as a mandatory to implement audio codec?
> >> It is low complexity and carries no royalty or license restrictions, it
> >> is very good quality for voice audio communications at the
> >> same bandwidths as G.711, and it is very widely implemented by the
> >> desktop IP phones.
> >
> > I would certainly support making G.722 mandatory to implement.
> >
> > --
> > Kevin P. Fleming
> > Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies
> > Jabber: | SIP: | Skype:
> kpfleming
> > 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
> > Check us out at &
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list