Andy,
On 20-08-13 17:29, Andy Wood wrote:
(...)
> All the Chinese manufacturers seem to be getting a bit excited about
> it for some reason...
> DMR/Mototurbo seems a much better bet than dPMR ;)
The problem with DMR is that is TDMA multiplexing two signals in one
12.5 Khz channel. This means
Hi all,
It seems I woke the list up a bit :-)
I just read the ETSI specs, and could see that there is provision for
four codecs, (only) bit encoded in two bits. These are specified as
AMBE+2, Chineese-yet-to-be-named, RALCWI, and "manufacturer specified".
It would be interesting to "grab" that po
Well I'd suggest Codec 2 is "communications quality", not "toll
quality". Toll quality means uncompressed A or mu law PCM, g279 etc.
I some one wants to compare for some samples of RALCWI and
encode the same source material with Codec 2.
- David
On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 08:23 -0700, Bruce Perens
to be getting a bit excited about it for
some reason...
DMR/Mototurbo seems a much better bet than dPMR ;)
Andy.
> Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 17:12:02 +0200
> From: gullik.webj...@corevalue.se
> To: freetel-codec2@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: [Freetel-codec2] Codec2 vs. RALCWI
&
They claim "near toll quality" at 2400 Baud without the FEC, 3600 with.
We claim toll quality at half that rate. From a short look, it appears
you have to buy their chip. We accomodate having the algorithm in your
main processor as long as you give us some means to reflash it.
Thanks
I do not really want to swear inthe church, but here goes:
Has anyone compared codec2 vs. RALCWI?
I understand RALCWI is a waveform codec rather than a "human voice"
modelling, but do you have any subjective views on this?
The emerging dpmr standard seems to have AMBE+2 and RALCWI as supported
c
