Comment Re:Other open source codecs (Score 2, Interesting) 133
[one of the IETF's iLBC draft authors - just to avoid confusion that might be caused for people that are not yet familiar with iLBC]
>They give access to their patents as long as you're using it in iLBC.
Right, and iLBC is an IETF draft = anyone can contribute to it and use it. Getting the freeware codec standard this way, it is easier to achieve outcome result being royalty free, which IMHO I find very grim for anything what is CELP based (+600 patents associated with CELP - source of info = delphion patent dbase, colleagues coauthors of the draft with +50 years of speech coding experience - authors/coauthors of a number of existing speech coding stds).
>but for reasonnable operation (2-5%), the Speex quality is (to my ear better).
Interesting observation. So far, we were getting from different users/communities contrary results, which IMHO I find coherent due to CELP's inter-packet memory dependency, where when losing one packet You are losing properties of the packets that are following, propagating error ... and where iLBC scores better (for those PL values as well) then other CELP based coders in tests done by recognized independent labs (Dynastat) ...
>CELP patent is expired and I have been careful not to include things like ACELP and other patented algorithms.
Please see above.
Best regards,
Alan Duric
>They give access to their patents as long as you're using it in iLBC.
Right, and iLBC is an IETF draft = anyone can contribute to it and use it. Getting the freeware codec standard this way, it is easier to achieve outcome result being royalty free, which IMHO I find very grim for anything what is CELP based (+600 patents associated with CELP - source of info = delphion patent dbase, colleagues coauthors of the draft with +50 years of speech coding experience - authors/coauthors of a number of existing speech coding stds).
>but for reasonnable operation (2-5%), the Speex quality is (to my ear better).
Interesting observation. So far, we were getting from different users/communities contrary results, which IMHO I find coherent due to CELP's inter-packet memory dependency, where when losing one packet You are losing properties of the packets that are following, propagating error
>CELP patent is expired and I have been careful not to include things like ACELP and other patented algorithms.
Please see above.
Best regards,
Alan Duric
