- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 07:20:37 +1100
In deed for audio all browsers except IE9 currently support WAV in their media elements, which makes it a reasonable recording format and acceptable for saving to the server. For communication between browser instances - in particular when used for conferenceing - I can see the need for a compressed format. Speex is a reasonable low-bandwidth codec, but for speech only and not for general audio. I would wait with choosing a low-bandwidth codec until the IETF's new "Internet Wideband Audio Codec" [1] Working Group finalizes their codec definition, since that will be a low-bandwidth codec not restricted to speech. It will be an unencumbered codec called "Opus" and is making great progress, see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec/current/msg02029.html . Cheers, Silvia. [1] http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/codec/charter/ On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Kevin Marks <kevinmarks at gmail.com> wrote: > For Audio at least, supporting uncompressed should be possible and > uncontroversial, as there are clearly no patent issues here. Anyone serious > about recording and processing audio would not consider recording compressed > audio nowadays. T > There are several widely used raw audio formats (.au, WAV, AIFF, AVI) that > can wrap into a filestream, and there are of course the issues of sample > rate, channel count and bit resolution, but compared to codec issues these > are relatively straightforward from an engineering point of view, and not > tied up with licensing issues. > Raw video is more of a problem at present, given common bandwidth > constraints, but if we are interested in providing for image manipulation > APIs, having pixel formats that map to video better than RGBA may be needed. > The enumeration at > http://developer.apple.com/quicktime/icefloe/dispatch020.html > may be helpful here. > On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Nils Dagsson Moskopp > <nils-dagsson-moskopp at dieweltistgarnichtso.net> wrote: >> >> Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com> schrieb am Thu, 25 Nov 2010 >> 20:01:37 +1100: >> >> > Also, implementing WebM or Ogg Theora encoding is just as royalty-free >> > as decoding them, so Mozilla, Opera and Google wouldn't need to worry >> > there. >> >> Slightly offtopic: Anyone considering the low-bandwith audio use case? >> Surely, speex might be useful here ? even a throttled UMTS connection >> suffices for VoIP. >> >> > So, the browsers would implement support for those codecs for which >> > they already implement decoding support - maybe with the exception of >> > Chrome which decode MPEG-4, but may not want to encode it, since it >> > might mean extra royalties. >> >> And probably less WebM content, too boot. Decoding, but not encoding >> MPEG formats could certainly fit into a royalty-free formats agenda, >> depending on the level of aggressiveness Google is wishing to take. >> >> > It would be nice if we could all, say, encode WebM, but I don't see >> > that happening. >> >> I see what you did there. >> >> >> Greetings, >> -- >> Nils Dagsson Moskopp // erlehmann >> <http://dieweltistgarnichtso.net> > >
Received on Saturday, 27 November 2010 12:20:37 UTC