Catering to the backwards compatibility needs of qam v.34bis doesn't seem like a terribly high priority application for a wideband voice codec... Your user agent can just use g.711 for that application.
Richard Shockey wrote: > Just as an amusing side bar to the discussion ..you all know that any > wideband codec kills fax don’t you? > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >> Of Arnt Gulbrandsen >> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 5:16 AM >> To: [email protected]; [email protected] >> Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker; Mans Nilsson; Patrik Fältström; >> [email protected] >> Subject: Re: WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec) >> >> Mans Nilsson writes: >> > But we are not running out of proposals for codecs to adapt. Both >> CELT >> > and SILK seem reasonable. >> >> Speaking for me as a user, MP3 and AAC are at least worthy of >> consideration. Someone said on this list that they waste bandwidth, >> but >> VoIP's main problem for me as a user is low speech quality, not >> unacceptable traffic. I hear fine voice quality on 128kbps mp3 radio >> streams and really fine on 176kbps ogg; I'd like to have that for >> phone >> calls. >> >> rnt >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
