Well I certainly know Codec2 is early development. Then again, Opus isn't quite finished as well...Since both don't have minimal bitstream containers, and they're not supported in any existing container, it's quite difficult to do some exemplary testing. All I know, is that it looks really promising, and all. I just wish, development would hurry up a little.
...and even an excellent (even if flagged experimental) TVBR mode in the reference codec(4).
Quote from: 2012 on 25 March, 2012, 12:00:45 PM...and even an excellent (even if flagged experimental) TVBR mode in the reference codec(4).It's actually on alpha (if not pre-alpha) stage and hardly usable.
Have You actually tested it to call it an excellent?
Quote from: IgorC on 25 March, 2012, 03:15:15 PMHave You actually tested it to call it an excellent?Yes (exp_wip4 not before). But not with killer samples. So, I will take your word for it.
As an interactive codec, Codec2 has no immediate necessity for a container, but at the same time recording those (long) communications in a different codec, in a different container, is just dumb...This may be a wrong place to bring it out, but remember Speex /can/ be contained in Ogg. Although -- on a personal note -- naming the tools went completely overboard: oggenc for Ogg/Vorbis with .ogg extension, and opusenc for Ogg/Opus with .opus extension. Anyway, I don't see why Codec2 shouldn't be contained in Ogg or some other container.I was thinking of using a Raspberry PI as "encoding device", or even two of them as a test bed, a bit like a tin can telephone.