On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 01:17:50PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 09:01:04AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
+Also it is inefficient for very small frames, AMR-NB for example has 6-32 +bytes per frame.
I don't think anyone really cares that much about efficiency when storing shit codecs in NUT. Obviously any good codec will use large frame sizes or compression will not be good.
Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I think AMR currently is the best quality speech codec...
No, PCM is the best quality speech codec. :) :) :)
nonsense, live speech is much higher quality. ;)))
AMR is good for shit-quality applications like telephone, but not for anything where you want the audio to actually be recognizable.
have you ever tested AMR and qcelp or are you just quessing? [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Asymptotically faster algorithms should always be preferred if you have asymptotical amounts of data