<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/">
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - Implement opus audio compression"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56993#c15">Comment # 15</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - Implement opus audio compression"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56993">bug 56993</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:tanuk@iki.fi" title="Tanu Kaskinen <tanuk@iki.fi>"> <span class="fn">Tanu Kaskinen</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to Arun Raghavan from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=56993#c14">comment #14</a>)
<span class="quote">> (In reply to Tanu Kaskinen from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=56993#c13">comment #13</a>)
> > So, are you against any compression support in the native protocol or not?
>
> I am not in favour of having encoding/decoding being part of our protocol.
> This added complexity in the native protocol is not worth the gains for the
> (imo) relatively uncommon use-case of tunnel modules.</span >
Ok, so if it was up to you, tunnels would never ever transparently compress the
audio that gets sent over the network, because that causes an uncomfortable
amount of complexity in the native protocol.
<span class="quote">> I'm not against the native protocol supporting compressed audio. i.e.
> clients providing compressed audio for devices that support compressed
> playback. in fact, this is something I would actively like to have, but
> there are tricky bits to deal with latency reporting, rewinds, etc.</span >
Isn't this already supported? Or do you mean avoiding the IEC61937 wrapping?
<span class="quote">> That said, if we had this, then the tunnel modules themselves could do the
> encode/decode.</span >
I don't follow.
<span class="quote">> I am curious about your views on this -- do you think this is something we
> should add to the native protocol, or are you batting for this since the
> work has been done, or ...?</span >
In my opinion tunnels should not be forever doomed to waste bandwidth. The
patch that was submitted should be reviewed, and I wouldn't like to give a
response of "will not accept the feature, don't try again". I haven't looked
deeply into the patch, so I don't know how close it's to my liking, but in
principle transparent encoding/decoding in the TCP transport doesn't seem very
complicated. It shouldn't affect e.g. rewinding, if all buffers are PCM, and
just the in-transit data is compressed.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
<li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>