Re: Proposed Aim for Speak Freely

Kevin,

To take this concept one step further, I would like to see an implementation
that does not require the running of an operating environment like Windows.
I have an application for remote station control where a SF could be
installed on a computer at someone's office, but at the remote site it is
simply a stand-alone box with interface for audio and PTT.

I know this is very specialized, but it would be nice.

Paul vander Heyden
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin McCoy" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: [speak-freely] Proposed Aim for Speak Freely


> I concur. I do not need high quality audio, since all my traffic is
> telephone quality (or less) radio communications.  I use SF to link
various
> radio repeater sites together and do not want or need additional codecs.
> Some of my sites have *very* limited network bandwidth, with some running
as
> slow as 9600 bps.  That 9600 bps is shared with other non-VOIP traffic no
> less!
>
> I think that SF programming effort should emphasize a solution of the NAT
> problem, possibly using a single port for both control and VOIP packets,
> code cleanup, turning it into a GUI-less DLL, Etc.
>
> After all the important stuff is done, then add all the codecs you like -
> but make sure you #ifdef them in the code so I can shut them all off :-)
If
> you guys can come up with codecs that use LESS bandwidth than the ones
> already included in SF with decent audio quality, then go for it.
>
> Lets focus on the original intended use of SF before reinventing
RealAudio,
> Windoze Media Player, Etc.
>
> Kevin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "P Heyden" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 07:14
> Subject: Re: [speak-freely] Proposed Aim for Speak Freely
>
>
> > Gentlemen,
> >
> > I have followed this thread of what ought and what ought not be done
with
> SF
> > and I only ask that the collective "we" not forget what many of us use
SF
> > for.  Namely, "plain old internet telephone".
> >
> > It is nice to talk about high quality codecs etc, but I can tel you that
> for
> > normal telecommunications 64K is not needed.  For many years I ran very
> good
> > quality PCM multiplexed voice circuits at 16K.  Our customers could not
> tell
> > the difference between 16k and 64K.
> >
> > What is needed is a definitive plan for the future of SF.  As in many
> things
> > you have to walk before you run.  I see the maintenance and support of
the
> > current product as a basic cornerstone for what the future might hold.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Paul vander Heyden
>
>
>
>                       * * *
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send E-mail containing
> the word "unsubscribe" in the message body (*not* as the
> Subject) to [email protected]
>


                      * * *

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send E-mail containing
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body (*not* as the
Subject) to [email protected]