One of the main requirements of the "best" codec is that it's widely supported by PSTN carriers. They're the ones looking for the most economical CPU/network bandwidth for the $license, generally preferring G.729 to GSM. I don't think speex is as popular as even GSM.
On Sat, 2007-01-27 at 14:25 -0500, Michael Jerris wrote: > 1. The case in question about H.264 seems to indicate that maybe > 1 pattent on H.264 is invalid, there are many. > 2. H.264 is a video codec, not an audio codec, so I suppose you > could encode audio on it if you wanted to plot the audio > signal on a graph and encode that, but not sure how useful > that would be (shamelessly stolen from a certain spandsp > author). > > > > If your really looking for a good codec that isn’t encumbered by > patents similar to g729, look at speex. It is the best alternative > with similar characteristics. > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2007-01-27 at 11:33 -0500, Lee Jenkins wrote: > > > > > > > How does H.264 compare with GSM and G.729 in CPU > demand (MIPS:Kbps) and > > > audio quality at low bitrates? GSM is $free, but G.729 is > higher quality > > > > > _______________________________________________ > --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- > > asterisk-biz mailing list > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz -- (C) Matthew Rubenstein _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-biz mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
