6 ms·

Codec2 is also fully open source and patent-free, in contrast to virtually every other ultra-low-bitrate voice codec (which are proprietary and have expensive p

Codec2 is also fully open source and patent-free, in contrast to virtually every other ultra-low-bitrate voice codec (which are proprietary and have expensive patent licensing attached). He has a Patreon if you want to support him in the ongoing development of Codec2 and his SDR modems to enable use of it in amateur radio: https://www.patreon.com/drowe67 https://www.patreon.com/drowe67

sp332 8y ago
Is Speex also in that category?
- voxadam 8y ago
  Speex has actually been superseded by Opus. Both are patent free as well.
  - zouhair 8y ago
    Opus is patented[0] but just royalty-free patents. [0]: http://opus-codec.org/license/ http://opus-codec.org/license/
- MrRadar 8y ago
  Speex and Opus bottom out around 6000-8000 bps. Codec2 starts at 3200 bps and goes down to 700 bps. The original target use for Codec2 is real-time transmission in the HF (shortwave) and VHF/UHF amateur radio bands where those are about as much as you can transmit within the same bandwidth as analog voice modes once you factor in error correction.
gwern 8y ago
Codec2 might be patent-free, but Codec2 with a WaveNet decoder isn't because WaveNet (convolutional neural networks for generating audio sequence data) is patented: https://patents.justia.com/patent/20180075343 https://patents.justia.com/patent/20180075343
- triangleman 8y ago
  raises hand Question for IP experts: now that I have heard of the existence of WaveNet and a rough idea of how it works (training a neural network to decode low-bitrate speech data with as much fidelity as possible to the original), would I be prohibited from selling a similar product built with the same technique? How about if I had never heard of WaveNet and went about doing the same thing?
  - particleman2 8y ago
    Why do you hate me?
  - matt4077 8y ago
    Yes, independent implementations of patented works are covered by the patent. BUT: patents are far more specific than just "a neural network to decode low-bitrate speech data with as much fidelity as possible to the original)". Starting with that goal, you are unlikely to recreate WaveNet's specific structure that is patented. In fact, WaveNet describes a more general method to efficiently work with sound signals, somewhat comparable to convolutions for images. It's also not impossible to work with sound using alternative MM structures that are not patented, and might actually perform better than WaveNet.
  - c3534l 8y ago
    WaveNet is actually a bit more complicated than that. But its still probably recreatable if you read the paper.
- merinowool 8y ago
  When it was patented? When I was working with AI about 15 years ago I was experimenting with conv nn to generate audio. I wouldn't have expected for this to be patented as this is so friggin obvious thing to do. It is like patenting 2+2=4 once you discover numbers.
  - ahoka 8y ago
    > It is like patenting 2+2=4 once you discover numbers. Welcome to software patents.

sp332 8y ago

Is Speex also in that category?

voxadam 8y ago
Speex has actually been superseded by Opus. Both are patent free as well.
- zouhair 8y ago
  Opus is patented[0] but just royalty-free patents. [0]: http://opus-codec.org/license/ http://opus-codec.org/license/
MrRadar 8y ago
Speex and Opus bottom out around 6000-8000 bps. Codec2 starts at 3200 bps and goes down to 700 bps. The original target use for Codec2 is real-time transmission in the HF (shortwave) and VHF/UHF amateur radio bands where those are about as much as you can transmit within the same bandwidth as analog voice modes once you factor in error correction.

gwern 8y ago

Codec2 might be patent-free, but Codec2 with a WaveNet decoder isn't because WaveNet (convolutional neural networks for generating audio sequence data) is patented: https://patents.justia.com/patent/20180075343 https://patents.justia.com/patent/20180075343

triangleman 8y ago
raises hand Question for IP experts: now that I have heard of the existence of WaveNet and a rough idea of how it works (training a neural network to decode low-bitrate speech data with as much fidelity as possible to the original), would I be prohibited from selling a similar product built with the same technique? How about if I had never heard of WaveNet and went about doing the same thing?
- particleman2 8y ago
  Why do you hate me?
- matt4077 8y ago
  Yes, independent implementations of patented works are covered by the patent. BUT: patents are far more specific than just "a neural network to decode low-bitrate speech data with as much fidelity as possible to the original)". Starting with that goal, you are unlikely to recreate WaveNet's specific structure that is patented. In fact, WaveNet describes a more general method to efficiently work with sound signals, somewhat comparable to convolutions for images. It's also not impossible to work with sound using alternative MM structures that are not patented, and might actually perform better than WaveNet.
- c3534l 8y ago
  WaveNet is actually a bit more complicated than that. But its still probably recreatable if you read the paper.
merinowool 8y ago
When it was patented? When I was working with AI about 15 years ago I was experimenting with conv nn to generate audio. I wouldn't have expected for this to be patented as this is so friggin obvious thing to do. It is like patenting 2+2=4 once you discover numbers.
- ahoka 8y ago
  > It is like patenting 2+2=4 once you discover numbers. Welcome to software patents.