4 ms·

Yeah. In reality the main reason new audio codecs are developed post-Opus isn't technical, it's so that companies can get their patents into new standards and r

by makomk 5y ago

Yeah. In reality the main reason new audio codecs are developed post-Opus isn't technical, it's so that companies can get their patents into new standards and rake in the licensing royalties. There are better codecs for really low bitrates but that's quite niche these days; even telephony is going wideband and higher bitrate.

sneak 5y ago
I think you perhaps overestimate the bandwidth available to most telephone handsets in most of the world. I'm in a hotel in a schengen country right now and I am lucky to get 200kbps via the wifi. Other, less industrialized countries are frequently worse. It's safe to say a ~billion people's lives can be improved with better low bitrate codecs.
- tialaramex 5y ago
  Let's assume for a moment that you're not stupid enough to confuse 200kBps (1.6Mbps) for 200kbps. Opus is fine down to 8kbps. It fits over a cheap, shitty mid-20th century analogue telephone line with room to spare. The ultra-narrow band stuff is very niche, and is consequently unlikely to have the broad impact you're imagining. In contrast there is continue enthusiasm for these pointless midband codecs that are similar in performance to Opus but have the "advantage" that somebody gets $$$.
  - zinekeller 5y ago
    "Pointless" is relative here. 8kbps is enough - when you don't spare anything anything to bit correction. Maybe in those cases, somewhat okay analogue audio is enough (for example, in long-distance raditelephony). But having a very impressive digital codec raises the bar significantly, especially the last time someone bothered with this is someone in Nokia trying to fit 6kbps using what was now rudimentary phone chips. Additionally, there are people in the world (including US) who are stuck using unreliable 28kbps lines. Having an option to do excellent audio and video is something that no-one seemed bothered to do.
  - sneak 5y ago
    That's 200kbps for a building with a few dozen people in it.
vbezhenar 5y ago
Why Whatsapp calls are so terrible even on 100 Mbps links?

by makomk 5y ago

sneak 5y ago

I think you perhaps overestimate the bandwidth available to most telephone handsets in most of the world. I'm in a hotel in a schengen country right now and I am lucky to get 200kbps via the wifi. Other, less industrialized countries are frequently worse. It's safe to say a ~billion people's lives can be improved with better low bitrate codecs.

tialaramex 5y ago
Let's assume for a moment that you're not stupid enough to confuse 200kBps (1.6Mbps) for 200kbps. Opus is fine down to 8kbps. It fits over a cheap, shitty mid-20th century analogue telephone line with room to spare. The ultra-narrow band stuff is very niche, and is consequently unlikely to have the broad impact you're imagining. In contrast there is continue enthusiasm for these pointless midband codecs that are similar in performance to Opus but have the "advantage" that somebody gets $$$.
- zinekeller 5y ago
  "Pointless" is relative here. 8kbps is enough - when you don't spare anything anything to bit correction. Maybe in those cases, somewhat okay analogue audio is enough (for example, in long-distance raditelephony). But having a very impressive digital codec raises the bar significantly, especially the last time someone bothered with this is someone in Nokia trying to fit 6kbps using what was now rudimentary phone chips. Additionally, there are people in the world (including US) who are stuck using unreliable 28kbps lines. Having an option to do excellent audio and video is something that no-one seemed bothered to do.
- sneak 5y ago
  That's 200kbps for a building with a few dozen people in it.

vbezhenar 5y ago

Why Whatsapp calls are so terrible even on 100 Mbps links?