| |||||||||||||
Comparison with codec2 & other very narrow encoders?Comparison with codec2 & other very narrow encoders?Posted Sep 12, 2012 14:40 UTC (Wed) by ejr (subscriber, #51652)In reply to: The Opus codec becomes an IETF standard by Jonno Parent article: The Opus codec becomes an IETF standard
It'd be nice to see a low-end version of the quality graph comparing Opus with codec2 ( http://www.rowetel.com/blog/?page_id=452 ) and other low-rate voice encoders. I realize they're different design points, but the comparison would give an idea of the trade-offs in bit rate v. overall use (not just voice) in the lower end.
(Log in to post comments)
Comparison with codec2 & other very narrow encoders? Posted Sep 13, 2012 8:50 UTC (Thu) by jmspeex (subscriber, #51639) [Link]
The comparison is actually not helpful because Opus just doesn't go that low. As I've said before, the only two codecs that Opus does not replace are codec2 and FLAC.
Comparison with codec2 & other very narrow encoders? Posted Sep 13, 2012 15:21 UTC (Thu) by ejr (subscriber, #51652) [Link]
It is helpful at a higher level. If you're trying to design a system, is it worth pushing the bit rate as low as possible? Seeing the qualities achieved for typical signals can help people decide which trade-offs to tackle. Should you shoot for jamming enough into single network packets with moderate lag and a simple overlapping scheme for handling drops or go ahead and expect many packets with a different error handling mechanism, etc.
|
|||||||||||||