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

["Hutton, Andrew" <[e-mail]>]

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]] On Behalf Of Roman Shpount
Sent: 21 December 2012 21:43
To: Adam Roach
Cc: [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