W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > December 2011

Re: Echo cancellation

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 17:54:28 +0100
Message-ID: <1323449668.11343.437.camel@altostratustier>
To: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
Le jeudi 08 décembre 2011 à 17:11 -0500, Randell Jesup a écrit :
> > Yeah, I can see that having to guide the user through a specific UI
> > isn't great; but how frequently does one have to deal with this? Is this
> > something that we need for the 1st release of Web RTC, or can this be a
> > feature that a later release could address?
> 
> I see this as quite trivial; I see little or no advantage in waiting.
> 
> The scope reduction seems to be virtually nil to me.  I could code it
> up faster than writing this email... ;-)

I would be better positioned to see if the required changes are trivial
with a concrete proposal — could you suggest something :)?

Dom

>   I 
> think in practice implementations would provide it, but 
> non-standardized.  On discuss-webrtc there are already questions about 
> "how do I turn EC on/off?".
> 
> > (anecdotically, I know I've never turned echo cancellation on or off in
> > any video/audio communication system I've used)
> 
> Depending on the hardware you have (many laptops have bad EC 
> characteristics, some headsets do) you may need to turn on/off EC.  I've 
> seen it fairly often done in Skype or Vidyo.
> 
> >> Another use-case might be where it knows (via several possible
> >> mechanisms) the other side is muted; it knows there's no echo to cancel.
> >
> > I think the right way to deal with this would be for the Web app to let
> > the browser know when the other side is muted (assuming using mechanisms
> > that the browser doesn't have access to directly).
> 
> Ok, but it's more complex than that at times (for example, if a youtube 
> video is playing you may want to keep EC on, so long as the EC code can 
> see the youtube audio going out).
> 
> >> I also see no security reasons to avoid giving the app access to the EC
> >> control.
> >
> > I can't think of any either; it's more a matter of reducing the scope of
> > what we need to develop (or get others to develop), so that we can ship
> > something earlier.
> 
> The scope reduction seems to be virtually nil to me.  I could code it up 
> faster than writing this email... ;-)
> 
Received on Friday, 9 December 2011 16:54:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:26 UTC